Smoking bans breach freedoms

Sounds like the rantings of a person who belongs to a group of ranters that meet in smoke-filled rooms to complain about anything and everything!

If that is the case, it would be their right to do so, without laws prohibiting such an activity.

Thanks Maxine! :) Even us ranters should have a place to rant! Heh... don't think I've ever been accused of belonging to a GROUP of ranters before though!

Hopefully Robert, I, and all our fellow ranters, both smoking and nonsmoking, will have a free place to gather on into the future!

Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com

"Mark Foreman." You want to look at this video about an 8 member police force going in to stop a smoker. (8 member police force !)

Then you might think again about present laws run Amok.

Examiner story about Smoking ban. (Video below.)
http://examiner.net/stories/121907/new_226940470.shtml

WATCH VIDEO: Security Camera from Smoking Bust.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1243803227/bclid1264582000/bctid1349535973

Just imagine if the Brittish has thought of banning smoking of those smoke filled taverns in the colonies. The sun still might not be setting on the Brittish Empire. Not to mention the fact the colonials secured the purchase of French war materials with what was that stuff called. Ohh...tobacco futures!

Smoking bans in private businesses is a Draconian concept and has not place in a free society.
Private business owners should have the right to ban or not ban smoking in their establishments.

Admit that you're a bunch of weak-willed nicotine addicts who lack the intelligence and discipline to understand that you are killing yourselves and others, and you can't quit.

Mark might try to remember that the Republic that is America was formed in 'smoke-filled' rooms, allowing him the freedom of speech to spew his venom.

Same thing for Jeff.

Answer me this boys, IF smoking is as deadly as you want it to be, how do you explain the baby boomers? We were not only conceived at a time when near 50% of the population smoked, but also grew up constantly exposed to SHS as smoking was everywhere, including movies, planes, elevators? How do explain the government being in a panic that our numbers of people are getting near retirement age and healthy enough to collect Social Security?

By the way, IF you are over the age of 40, you too were exposed to quite a bit of SHS, yet you are still here condoning trampling the constitution and promoting discrimination. Why aren't you dead yet IF our smoking does in fact KILL?

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to answer those questions, logically that is.

SHS doesn't have to be unhealthy to justify controls being placed on it. It's enough that it is irritating. Like somebody blasting his boombox on the bus- that's not going to make anyone sick, but it's freaking irritating. I don't want to smell your disgusting smoke, thanks, so take it into your own home.

Some smart guy once said "your right to swing your fist through the air ends where my face begins."

Jeff S., your the biggest know it all jackass liberal I've seen in quite some time. It's my life, not yours, it is called freedom, something the elite liberals know nothing about.

Rick,..your face is intruding on my right to swing. Get it?,..That tired old cliche cuts both ways.
Jeff, - It's my choice to kill myself by smoking if I choose to do so, though it's likely going to take me another 40 years to complete the task.
It's your choice to move along and not be a participant in that action.
Mark, - If we don't speak up now, ...you're next, and you clearly don't understand that concept.

Non-smokers exposure to SHS has always been voluntary when entering a hospitality venue that clearly allowed smoking on the premises, the CHOICE was always theirs to make. Whether as a patron, or as an employee, the CHOICE to be there has always been sufficient safeguard to any danger posed, whether that perceived danger was either real or imagined and no force of law was required to make that choice. Attempting to legislate morality is not the role of state government.
Attempting to legislate a guaranteed availability of environment to meet the PERSONAL PREFERENCE of a majority while penalizing the minority in order to achieve that goal is not the role of state government. The smoking ban is a serious loss of liberty, and one which makes future encroachments of state power upon individual freedom more easily justifiable for those who wish to force others to behave as they do.

A Law that forces the minority of the population to forfeit their freedom to make individual choices for themselves will never have the respect that the majority mistakenly believes it is due. After all, the majority will forfeit nothing by instituting such restrictions on the minority and will be doing so for no reason other than the majority's unwillingness to make a personal decision of their own. That decision is simple: To enter a Smoking Allowed business, or not to enter. Clearly the majority of Anti-tobacco proponents do not want to be inconvenienced by having to exercise any personal decision making skills, and are clearly willing to forfeit the rights of the minority in order to achieve this mindless smoke-free paradise.

Some smart guy once said "your right to swing your fist through the air ends where my face begins."
RICK: The same thing applies to you-- it's your responsibility to make a conscious choice to avoid the many things in life that bother you. It is not the responsibility of the government to overtake your personal decision making and responsibility for your own well being, whatever you might percieve that to be. GO TO PLACES WHERE SMOKING IS PROHIBITED. There are many such places to choose from.

Maxine- people have the right to enjoy public spaces without other, impolite people squirting them with water guns, blasting music at them at full volume, flashing strobe lights in their eyes, or blowing clouds of smoke in their faces. GO TO PLACES WHERE SMOKING IS PERMITTED.

GO TO PLACES WHERE SMOKING IS PERMITTED.
--- I do. As for being able to enjoy "public spaces" -- I should remind you that a bar or restaurant is a privately owned established, not a government owned venue.

[I should remind you that a bar or restaurant is a privately owned established, not a government owned venue]

Absolutely correct, and I have no problem with bar and restaurant owners allowing smoking. I can and will choose to go elsewhere, or I will go to their places and suck it up. It's a different story with public places like theaters or stadiums, or workplaces. That's where a smoking ban is appropriate.
Merry Christmas to you and all the other smokies, as well as the nons.

Smoke away folks. The planet's getting too crowded any way

(rick said): public places like theaters or stadiums, or workplaces. That's where a smoking ban is appropriate.

—These are also privately owned venues.

i am a "polite" smoker . . . i CANT STAND to have smoke blown in my face when i am TRYING to eat dinner and HATE the smell on my clothes when i leave a tavern. i dont smoke in others cars, nor my own. IF i do smoke its outside and away from other people, or if i am at someones house and the host says its ok . . . (poker parties mostly) but the i still mostly go outside.

I go fishing in NY State and you wouldnt BELIEVE how nice it is to actually sit at a bar and NOT have to breathe someones nasty smoke blowin in your face . . . . we just go outside!!

it easy!!

Perhaps Linda F. and Mr.
Gehrmann can tell us where
exactly in the Constitution
is the right to smoke enumerated. I could not
find it in my copy.

Dave Kerr

“where exactly in the Constitution is the right to smoke enumerated. I could not find it in my copy.”

Dear Dave,
I suggest your copy may be the new socialist version. The 9th Amendment states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” It would be impossible to list all rights, to include many I am sure you enjoy.
The Constitution of Pennsylvania Artcle1,Section 1.-Inherent Rights of Mankind. “All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.”
You have the right to declare your property smoke free, that right is not enumerated either.
This topic is about smoking but it is actually about freedom from a tyrannical government that our founding fathers wanted to limit.
“The government is best which governs least.”--Thomas Paine.

"This topic is about smoking but it is actually about freedom from a tyrannical government that our founding fathers wanted to limit."

Let me try to understand this.

The Surgeon General reports
that exposure to SHS increases the risk of heart
disease and lung cancer among non-smokers. It is
also implicated as a cause
of Asthma and other respiratory problems in children exposed to SHS from their parents.

To suggest that is a human-rights' issue and not a public health issue is,
therefore, intellectually dishonest. Indeed, it is obvious that the opponents of smoking bans in the workplace are driven by libertarian ideology rather than by sound scientific evidence.

Consequently, it is appropriate for
the government to constrain the rights of the smokers for the benefit
of the majority who do not. The inconvenience smokers face of not smoking or smoking out of doors is a small sacrifice
compared to the risks they
would impose on others.

The Surgeon Generals report was a meta analysis of “studies” that he decided to pick for his report, leaving out 2 of the largest studies ever done that showed there was little risk to SHS exposure. Risk in and of itself does not cause anything, other confounding factors must exist. The former Surgeon General(Carmona) was an admitted prohibitionist long before his report. He testified to congress in 2003 he favored banning tobacco.
You speak of scientific evidence, there is none, only speculation. The scientific method (resulting in fact) has never been applied, anti smoking zealots only cite studies they agree with, there are many more studies that show the opposite. Their cited studies have been promoted as a result of the funding they have available to do so, that makes them a special interest. A nice way for pharmaceutical sales of nicotine replacement therapies by having the government use social engineering to control behavior on private property.
Implicated, is another weasel word used to suggest, again not scientific. Check any reputable source on asthma and you will find THERE IS NO KNOWN CAUSE OF ASTHMA. The rate of asthma has increased by 60% since 1979,the smoking rate has declined roughly 50% in the same time. Does that not suggest it does not cause asthma?
The multi-case study sponsored by the World Health Organization in 1998 showed children living with 2 smoking parents had a 22% LESS likely chance of getting cancer. The WHO is an anti tobacco organization and attempted to hide the results, the Surgeon General left that study out of his meta analysis as well.
Lastly, OSHA will not apply the general duty clause to SHS because “In normal situations,exposures would not exceed permissible exposure limits”.
Smoke free air does not, necessarily, equate with clean air. Businesses may cut back on ventilation and filtration when visible smoke is not present, what is in the air not being properly ventilated and filtered?
All of my information can be easily verified. That information is not publicized because there is not funding to do so. The mass media spreads the anti smoking dogma because they are paid to do so and they love to sensationalize for headlines.
I wish you well Dave, I think you may be a thinker and may realize you were hoodwinked, as I was before I looked beyond the headlines.
Sincerely

Second hand smoke is dangerous -yes. But so is exhaust from cars and trucks - and I do not se anyone banning htem from driving past my house......

I had a dream to start my organization, however I didn't earn enough amount of cash to do that. Thank heaven my close mate proposed to utilize the home loans. Thus I received the consolidation loans and realized my dream.