Last month I wrote about how excited I was that Maryland was banning smoking in all bars, restaurants, etc. and how I was hoping Pennsylvania would follow suit.
In order for that to happen the House and the Senate need to decide on a bill both will agree to sign. Right now they both have passed separate bans, but aren't seeing eye-to-eye on some details. For more information on the specifics you can check out the article in today's YDR.
The next big step in the process is April 1, when a committee made up of members from both the House and the Senate will meet to try to work out the differences. Right now the big points of contention are whether to include bars, taverns and casinos in the ban.
I'm all for an all-out ban on smoking in public places. Part of it is absolutely for selfish reasons. I don't want to be breathing that crap. The other part is because I have had friends who work in these places and I don't think they should be forced to breathe second-hand smoke whenever they are working. Why should some servers, hosts, etc., be protected by this law, but not others?
It doesn't seem to make a whole bunch of logical sense.
There's no excuse for your abysmal ignorance on the subject of smoking;
The internet offers information galore on the subject.
Of course it's contrary to conventional wisdom, so you may value political corrrectness above the facts. But if not,you can start with Forces International.
I wonder why a sign on the door saying "smoking allowed" isn't good enough for some people? In this day and age there is no way that ever venue is smoking, so you still have options. It's sad that some people want their preferences put on everyone.
Sad that the business owner can't decide who he wants for customers, the gov't always knows the customer better then the people who have money invested; I guess.
My argument is this: I cannot go to a bar, get drunk and then drive home for the risk I may kill someone. Why should a smoker be allowed to sit next to me and blow smoke in my face if the end result is the same? Now I may or may not die of second hand smoke, just as I may or may not wreck driving home drunk.
Joe when is having a sign telling you there's smokers a problem?
YOu wouldn't have any smoke blowing in your face if you went to the non smoking venues that are out there. Why does every business have to be nonsmoking? Why can't the business owner decide the customer; and the patron take some responsibility for where they want to spend their dollar?
BTW I think Drunk Driving is a weee tadd (ok largely) different from smoking one cigarette; especially when there's a sign telling you theres a smoker inside. You are really comparing apples and oranges, one wisp of a cigarette wouldn't even compare to the risk of dying due to one drunk driver. There's a reality that one cigarette won't ever cause people to die, yet being hit by one driver most certainly may! Don't you realize that exaggeration won't make them believe you more; it will actually illustrate that you will do anything to try to make a case from nothing?
Ok, so my quickly put together "comparison" is a bit exaggerated. Smokers can smoke almost anywhere, drinkers are mostly limited to a bar or their home. I can't step out of the smokey bar and have a drink on the sidewalk, or I can't have a drink on the way to the bar. Smokers rights far exceed a drinkers rights when it comes to where its "legal". Don't get me wrong, I do not feel that you should be able to drink and drive, but I do feel a drinker should not have have their choices limited to where they want to drink. You go to a bar to drink. I would not go to a smoking lounge and complain about them not supplying whiskey. Whether as a consumer or an employee, I strongly feel that smoking indoors should be banned. And keep all of them from huddling around the entrance too. I've been t omany other states where smoking indoors is banned and business is NOT hurting.
Oh yes the everywhere should be smokefree, and there shouldn't be any options for owners (and workers) that smoke to cater to clients they may want. I ask again why wouldn't a sign work, so that people would know their choices and have options they want??
I suggest you read this ban damage page, and tell me there's no body hurting.
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/4.html
I also suggest you read this page, so that people realize there is economic (not just personal) damage done by bans.
http://www.smokersclub.com/banloss3.htm
If that doesn't make you wonder about the reality, maybe this will. Excerpt:ST. LOUIS, MO (2008-01-24) An economist with the Federal Reserve Bank in St. Louis says that the economic impact of smoking bans may be more significant than previously thought.....
Michael Pakko published an article on the subject in the quarterly economic journal, "Regional Economist".
In his research Pakko found that statewide bans like the one recently passed in Illinois, and city bans like the one in Columbia, Missouri, are both likely to decrease revenue.
"Bars are by far more affected than restaurants and the effect on restaurants depend on a number of factors including climate and whether there is a high prevalence of smokers in the community to begin with."
According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Pakko says bars typically see losses ranging from four to sixteen percent of revenue.
http://publicbroadcasting.net/kwmu/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1217219§ionID=1
I have also seen my local area (which is considered one of the highest areas of drinkers in Ontario (Canada), with bars shutting down, and independent restaurants no longer in existence (only a few that aren't franchises now). Which brings into doubt your "no harm theory". Don't just take my word for it, ask the typical bar crowd (21- 30) how often they go to bars in the smoking prhibitioned areas. I ask around here and they all say they party at friends, or go for last call only (where before the ban they would go early & stay). Just ask, and they will tell you, don't believe every article you see. How many articles did this economic professional study get in the papers (0), yet an epidemiologist etc gets the 11 o'clock report? How strange is that? It makes me wonder if the news is paid for, or actually reported (and researched) now a days.
I was a smoker for 26 years and over here in the UK it was almost expected tradition that bars (pubs) and smokers went hand in hand.
Infact I was one of the loudest voices against what I considered the "Illegal Law" banning smoking from public and work places starting with Scotland then Ireland, Wales and finally England.
Then I spent a year in Scotland when the ban came in before it did in England.
What a refreshing change in bars. Clean, pleasant. My clothes didn't stink nor did they get burned by pissed (drunk) youths with no thought for others around them.
Then I moved back to England whereupon the ban had taken effect. I was still vociferous about the government bringing in the illegal law which is basically against The Human Rights Act 1998 which the Govt did bring in. Freedom of speech, thought and expression were now being supressed by this dictatorship government of selfish MP's with nothing better to do.
Well I did rant and rant.
Then, after the budget and with a packet of cigarettes topping £6 yes £6 ($11) for 20 ciggies I decided to quit for several reasons
Taxation and health being the 2 major ones. I felt we were a nation taxed way too much.
Anyways I was an ardent pro absolutely in your face smoker until 11 days ago. Now I wonder why the hell I ever started.
I still think the laws are illegal but am secretly grateful they are there as I can go out without being remotely tempted to smoke these days.