Designated Smoking Areas

In response to djDaemon's opinion regarding the alleged lack of obviousness between the comparison of air pollution in restaurants to that of soil and water pollution surrounding restaurants, I opine that such a comparison is not absurd. And, I still hold my opinion that elected officials should enact laws that place reasonable restrictions on trade so long as such restrictions improve my quality of life.

Careful what you wish your elected officials to do in the name of your health:

‘Noise pollution, also known as environmental noise or sound pollution, is the propagation of noise with harmful impact on the activity of human or animal life... High noise levels can contribute to cardiovascular effects in humans and an increased incidence of coronary artery disease.’

Your elected officials may deem many activities at CP dangerous to your health or a risk to employees due to extended exposure.

Also understand your elected officials often act at the behest of others with no regard to your personal well being.

Urumqi said:
...obviousness between the comparison of air pollution in restaurants to that of soil and water pollution surrounding restaurants...

It's not complicated. The business owner owns the restaurant, not the environment. He can't do as he pleases with others' property, but he sure as hell should be able to do as he pleases with his own.

...elected officials should enact laws that ... improve my quality of life.

What you're basically saying is that you're unwilling or unable to take responsibility for your own well being, so you need the government to do it for you.

djDaemon said:

What you're basically saying is that you're unwilling or unable to take responsibility for your own well being, so you need the government to do it for you.

Nope. I neither basically nor technically said or wrote that. I explicitly wrote that “I still hold my opinion that elected officials should enact laws that place reasonable restrictions on trade so long as such restrictions improve my quality of life.”

But the thing is, the only scenario in which second hand smoke in a private establishment poses any risk to your "quality of life" is in the event you choose to enter the establishment.

So instead of making your own choice on whether or not to expose yourself to that risk, you're asking the government to do it for you. You're handing over responsibility for your choices to the government.

I would love to see Cedar Point become a smoke free park if it were enforceable. Logistically, it would be very difficult. What bothers me most about the smoking areas are when parents take their kids into the smoking areas. I hate seeing kids sitting there surrounded by 15 people smoking. Its even worse when I see the kids coughing because of the smoke.

Im not a fan of big government, but there are times when the government needs to step in and regulate because people are not capable of doing it themselves.

In regard to djDaemon's incessant challenges about my opinions: I agree that in regard to my appreciation of local governments banning smoking in "public accommodations" I endorsed "hand[ing] over the responsibility to those local governments." But, that's why we've developed a so-called "social contract" and formed representative governments (to allow us to do things we individually cannot do). And, because we collectively achieved this change and banned smoking from public accommodations, we've increased my quality of life: I no longer have to make a decision between eating a BLT sandwich while simultaneously increasing my chances of developing a smoke-related cancer and not eating a BLT sandwich. I can now have the choice of eating a BLT sandwich without simultaneously increasing my chances of developing a smoke-related cancer. But, none of this is to imply, suggest, state, or otherwise convey that I am "unwilling or unable to take responsibility for [my] own well being, so [I] need the government to do it for [me]." My understanding of myself and my beliefs about how democratic systems work are different than the assertions you've made about my understandings and beliefs.

I would completely understand if what you're trying to say is that you don't like smoking bans because it decreased your quality of life. But, that would be your opinion.

What are everyone's thoughts on flying drones in the smoking areas?

Dvo said:

What are everyone's thoughts on flying drones in the smoking areas?

My thoughts (in no particular order): loud, sarcastic, unnecessary, where should I go for lunch?, is the weather for this weekend going to be good for mountain biking, what time will the babysitter arrive tomorrow? how long will my wife want to stay out at her friends's birthday party? do we have plans for Sunday? how much time do I want to spend working on a contract assignment this weekend?

Wasn't it the voters of Ohio, of which I am one, that voted to pass the no smoking in public places law, NOT the government?

Urumqi said:

I can now have the choice of eating a BLT sandwich without simultaneously increasing my chances of developing a smoke-related cancer.

You can't make your own BLT? No wonder you're so reliant on the government.

djDaemon said:

You can't make your own BLT? No wonder you're so reliant on the government.

Thank you for asking whether I can make a BLT sandwich instead of assuming. I can, in fact, make my own BLT and especially enjoy doing so after curing my own bacon. But I also enjoy that I can now choose to have someone else make me a BLT sandwich without fear of increasing my chances of acquiring a smoke-related cancer. In regard to your wonderment about my alleged reliance (or lack of reliance) on "the" government I will remind you that depending on where you live my reliance on "the government" is no greater nor lesser than yours. it's the true wonderment of a democracy. We're all in this together. Welcome to the club compatriot.

Dan Fielding said:

Wasn't it the voters of Ohio, of which I am one, that voted to pass the no smoking in public places law, NOT the government?

Yes, back in 2007

Thabto said:

Dan Fielding said:

Wasn't it the voters of Ohio, of which I am one, that voted to pass the no smoking in public places law, NOT the government?

Yes, back in 2007

Wondrous!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

djDaemon, is it your belief that Ohio's 2007 vote to ban smoking in places of public accommodation represented an instance in which a minority was oppressed by the majority?

Yes, since the owners of private establishments were told by the government (via mandate by voting majority) how to operate their businesses. The appropriate method for the majority to assert their power was through the free market. In other words they should have "voted" with their wallets instead of relying on the government.

Like I said above - both you and the business owner have liberty. You obviously feel his liberty is less important than yours. I disagree.

In regard to djDaemon's assertion regarding the "obviousness" of my feelings, I respond that I have no feelings regarding any unspecified abstract owner of a business. I do hold the belief, however, that every citizen of the United States holds equal rights to any and all liberties. In regard to djDaemon's opinion that "private establishments" constitute a recognizable minority and that that minority was "oppressed" after the state enacted legislation to conform to the results of a 2007 election, i disagree.

You can disagree, but you are wrong.

DJ Deman sounding awfully "we must return the means to the workers" here or some **** like that.