smoking and littering problem

JuggaLotus said:
No, there is not an option.

A business owner cannot open a store that allows smoking, which, unless something changed, is still a perfectly legal activity (as opposed to snorting cocaine off a hookers ***).

So no, there is not an option for smokers.

Up until now though, there was an option for everyone. Everyone could find a restaurant/bar that either allowed or didn't allow smoking based on their personal preference and without government interference. Now, no one has a choice.

Is it that hard of a concept to understand?

Sure there is.

There are cigar bars and casinos.

There still is an option for smokers. No one is stopping you from smoking. You just can't do it inside anymore. Now if they banned smoking all together, that would be a problem.

Why would banning it all together be a problem?

If they banned smoking you know how many really mad people there would be in the streets? There would be murders. I quit cold turkey 3 years ago after smoking for 10 years and it was horrible. The first 3 days were the worst but after that it was all downhill. The crime rate would spike for about a week.

Pete said:
In most states, are you allowed to buy a hooker in your residence?

Thank goodness for Nevada.

djDaemon said:

Pete said:

Well, are you allowed to snort cocaine in your residence? In most states, are you allowed to buy a hooker in your residence?

Since when are either of those activities legal? Yeah, you're also not allowed to murder and rape people in your home. What's your point?

That is my point. Those activities are illegal because society has determined that those activities are harmfull to the common good. Smoking is not illegal, but smoking where you might harm someone is.

Drinking alcoholic beverages is not illegal, but driving while drunk is because you might kill an innocent victim. Smoking is not illegal, but smoking inside is because you might kill an innocent victim. See my point?

Do we take away my freedom of being a customer or employee of that establishment if I don't want to breath a harmful substance?

You have the freedom to give your money to companies you feel offer a good value to you. If you enjoy a product/service enough to put up with the smoke, you find value in it. If you don't enjoy a product/service enough to put up with smoke, you don't find value in it. Its no more complicated than that. You're suggesting its OK to infringe on the rights of business owners to operate as they see fit within the law.

As I said before, many people find the environment of a strip club to be harmful to society. Should we ban nudity in strip clubs as well? Personally, I just don't give them my money. I find that preferable to bitching about how awful nudity is while handing over $40 for a lap dance.

But what if ALL places allow smoking (as was common, at least with bars), then what? I'm forced to be in a toxic environment if I want to participate. Business owners are alread infringed upon in many ways. If you own a bar, you can't sell to persons under 21 (lost business), you can't sell drinks in to-go cups (lost business, at least in Ohio), you can't promote 2 for 1 anymore in Ohio (lost business). How is "persons can't smoke inside" any different?

Plus saying "if I don't enjoy a product or service enough to put up with smoke I'm not getting enough value from it" is stupid. Tobacco smoke is toxic, it is not a question of "putting up" with it, it is a question of putting your health in danger.

The smoking in public building bans are no different.

Except we're NOT talking about banning smoking in public! We're banning smoking on PRIVATE PROPERTY!

Private property that is open to the public. I consider any business that does not operate on an invitation only basis as a public building because it is open to all.

Pete said:
I find it easy to hold my breath for thefew seconds it takes to pass through the area outside the front doorwhere someone may be smoking. Not a problem. Now, if you were smokinginside, that would be a problem.

I consider any business that does not operate on an invitation only basis as a public building because it is open to all.

New York City, The borough of Queens to be specific at 32nd and Queens Blvd in Sunny Side. Its a cloud of smoke on the sidewalk where a chain of bars are located about 3 blocks long. Hold your breath and die of asphyxiation. Once all buildings go smoke free in Michigan, I see the streets of Royal Oak having the same problem. Then what?

While you may consider any business that does not operate on an invitation only basis as public, the government does not. A library, city hall or park is public especially since taxes keep that facility open.. A bar, nightclub or pool hall is private sector and my taxes do not contribute to that businesses day to day operations and can refuse service to anyone where a library must allow anyone to use its facility.

Pete said:
Those activities are illegal because society has determined that those activities are harmfull to the common good.

Fine. If its such a problem, ban smoking. Forcing private businesses to do something the free market can, has and does do on its own is absurd.

But what if ALL places allow smoking (as was common, at least with bars), then what?

But they don't, Pete. In Michigan and elsewhere, many (most around me) restaurants went smoke-free on their own. They made the decision because it was in their best interest. Some places felt it was in their best interest to allow smoking. And we didn't need some absurd legislation - the free market made it happen, as it often does.

If you own a bar, you can't sell to persons under 21...

Because the legal drinking age is 21, both in and outside the bar.

...you can't sell drinks in to-go cups...

Because carrying an open container is illegal, outside the bar.

...you can't promote 2 for 1 anymore in Ohio...

If that's a law that bans promoting buy one, get one drinks, I think its an absurd law.

This smoking ban is different, Pete, because smoking is perfectly legal outside the bar, unlike underage drinking (and hookers and coke).

Plus saying "if I don't enjoy a product or service enough to put up with smoke I'm not getting enough value from it" is stupid. Tobacco smoke is toxic, it is not a question of "putting up" with it, it is a question of putting your health in danger.

As I said, if its that problematic for you, fight to make smoking illegal.

Private property that is open to the public. I consider any business that does not operate on an invitation only basis as a public building because it is open to all.

Just because you consider it public doesn't mean it is. The distinction is there for a reason. Public property is paid for by everyone (i.e. "the public"). Private property is paid for by its owner. An owner who can refuse you service. An owner who, up until now, could operate his businesses as he saw fit within the law.

So do you believe that owners of private businesses that are open to the public should have no legal obligation to protect the health and safety of their customers or employees? Because I find that concept incomprehensible.

Mike, why should any business be forced to protect customers from themselves? Does personal responsibility not exist anymore?

Should businesses be able to sell cigarettes? How about foods with high fat contents? Red meat? Alcohol? All have known health risks. Maybe those products shouldn't be sold to protect the health and safety of customers? Or maybe customers should take some responsibility for their own health and safety and avoid businesses that allow smoking and decide for themselves what products they want to buy? Same for employees.

Yep, good points, one and all. Where do you draw the line?

John, I don't believe the intent of smoking regulations is to protect customers from themselves. More correctly, it's to protect customers from other customers who don't care about anybody else's health.

If you want to go the other way, why should we have a ban on asbestos in public buildings? Let the customers decide if they want to frequent a business that doesn't care about their exposure to carcinogens.

Because asbestos is a hidden danger that customers cannot easily discern. That is not the case with smoking in say a restaurant.

As for protecting yourself, you can do that if you are concerned about risks of second hand smoke by not going to businesses that allow smoking.

What they said. Asbestos itself is regulated. That is, you cannot use it in either a public or private setting. Smoking hasn't been made illegal, and until it is, I don't see how the government should be able to say what private entities can and can not permit its use.

And GB makes a good point with regard to the obvious dangers of smoking versus the invisible dangers of asbestos. You know when you walk into a smoky bar, but you'd have no idea if the building contained asbestos. So, we banned it altogether, because its not possible to make an informed decision about limiting exposure. The same is absolutely not true with regard to exposure to smoking.

We've learned a LOT about the dangers of smoking over the last 30 years, and as such, people have been making increasingly-intelligent decisions regarding use and exposure. As I've pointed out several times already, most restaurants here in MI went smoke-free on their own. Presumably, because the free market dictated that doing so was in their best interest.

And I should add, because I think this gets lost in the shuffle... I'm on the side of the non-smokers, in that I much prefer not being around smoke. Hate it. Avoid it as much as possible. Loathe everything about it. But I also realize that I am ultimately responsible for my own health and comfort. I have absolutely NO right to tell others what legal activities they can and cannot do on private property.

Out of curiosity, dj, where -- if anywhere -- would you agree with banning smoking?

Public places. If I have no choice whether or not my money goes to an entity (as is the case with taxes and public property), I support banning smoking.

If I do have a choice of whether or not they get my money (as is the case with restaurants, bars, hotels, casinos, etc.), then it should be left to those business owners and their patrons** as to whether or not smoking (or other legal activities) are permitted.

I wholeheartedly support private business owners being allowed to make that decision for themselves. A bar in one neighborhood might be more successful without smoking, while another across town might be better off allowing it. Now we're simply taking that choice away, and that's simply not right (unless you're a self-centered moron who thinks your rights supersede that of others*).

**Before the argument is made that this type of legislation is the decision of the patrons, allow me to point out that you're wrong in that assumption. If 72% of the adult population doesn't smoke (as is the case in Michigan), it should be insanely easy for popular opinion to influence the market, by simply not going (and exactly that has already happened with many restaurants and even some hotels). And that's where my biggest beef comes from - the fact that most of the people who support these bans still frequented those evil, dirty, terrible places. I honestly don't get what's so hard to understand about not giving your hard-earned money to a place you feel doesn't operate with your best interests in mind*.

*Not saying you specifically, Mike.

Mike (I know I'm not DJ, but I'll answer as well).

Wherever the owner of said property has decided they don't want to allow smoking. In the case of public buildings (city hall, libraries, college campuses, court houses) then it would be when the city/state/federal government decides that it doesn't want to allow smoking on its property. In the case of private buildings (bowling alleys, KofC/Elks/VFW halls, casinos, bars, restaurants) it should be where they want.

I recently quit smoking (though I do still enjoy cigars) and I'll agree with DJ that it is nice going to a non-smoking establishment and coming home not smelling of smoke. But there are times as well where I would like to go out, enjoy a few drinks and have a cigar with them. Soon I will no longer be able to do that.

EDIT: And I should add, I like the new signature. ;)

Thanks. I'm wondering how long I have until it has to be replaced with an 'R.I.P. Cedar Fair' sig. ;)

I guess the smoking ban debate is simply an issue that parties are always going to disagree over. Slap it onto the list with abortion, taxes, and the relative merits of classic Trek vs Next Gen.

This issue is so far removed from something like abortion that its not even funny.

But I see your point - one side will never admit they're ignoring the law (and the power of the free market) in favor of infringing on others' rights.

:)

Big difference between protecting those that can't do it themselves and protecting those who refuse to do it themselves.

Of the 4 issues on the list, I would group smoking bans (at least in the 37 or so states that have adopted one) and Trek. Issues can be interesting to discuss but nothing will come of it. I don't see smoking bans being repealed any time during my lifetime. Taxes and abortion are at least live issues. Certainly will see changes in taxes and may see changes in abortion.