Given the Surgeon General's recent negative report on second hand smoke (article here) do you think we'll see a national smoking ban (i.e., public buildings, restaurants, bars, etc.)?
National smoking ban?
- Thread starter Masey
- Start date
There will be no national smoking ban. Bans = less smokers = less tax revenue.
Coaster
New Member
I was living in California when the 'no smoking in bars and restaurants' took effect. The smokers simply stepped out for a smoke. The only bars/restaurants that suffered were the ones located near b/r's that you could smoke in due to them being 'open air' type places, but that was only a 6 month or so thing, nobody went out of business. I hated the ban, but then everything worked out. I support the idea.
Anyway, what should be banned is cigarette filters, I'm tired of those non-biodegradable things lying everywhere, DISPOSE of the PROPERLY!
Anyway, what should be banned is cigarette filters, I'm tired of those non-biodegradable things lying everywhere, DISPOSE of the PROPERLY!
vanbells
Pookieboo!!!
BuddyLee said:If something happens at all it will be the local governments who pass it. Take Chicago for instance. They're considering telling all the restaurants in the city that they have to serve healthier foods with no trans fatties.
It already happened in Charles County. You are no longer allowed to smoke in restaurants except in La Plata.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
All public place on military installations are smoke free, including base clubs and barracks.vanbells said:
It already happened in Charles County. You are no longer allowed to smoke in restaurants except in La Plata.
ohstate
Member
migtig said:They still allow smoking in some of the malls back home.The federal government can try a national ban, but some states will overturn it and it'll wind up in front of the Supreme Court as an issue of state rights versus federal.
Sounds a lot like the national 21 year old drinking age. Some states fought it, but lost. The feds said they would withhold highway funding if states didn't cave. I think the state of Wisconsin fought it, but lost. I can see a similar loss in this case. If the feds tie health care money to the national smoking ban, the states will not likely win this one.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/pubs/wb/95wb3.pdf
Railroad
Routinely Derailed
Masey said:
Y'know, lots of people survived to old age just fine before we had surgeon general's reports and hyperactive activists.
I'm a cancer survivor (so far) and a former smoker who was also subjected to constant doses of second-hand smoke as a kid. Tobacco smoke stinks terribly (the longer it's been since I smoked the worse it smells), and few would argue that it's not bad for you, but we're taking things to extremes here.
I've little doubt that the whining pot-stirring spoiled brats of modern America will push hard and eventually win a national smoking ban, but when they do it will be a stupid and sad day in this country's history.
Let me give you a Surgeon General's warning you can take to the bank: The Surgeon General has determined that living is hazardous to your health.
Life is a temporary condition of unpredictable length followed predictably by death, and no amount of legislation will change that. Whining and pushing legislation because somebody else's habit might offend you (and if you're that easily offended you have no grasp on the realities of living) is ridiculous. Might as well ban earthquakes, forest fires, traffic accidents, and steep cliffs.
Coaster
New Member
Well when some else's habit ends up in my lungs, eyes, and stinking up my clothes, yea.... I'm offended. Drink all the alcohol you want.. just don't drive. Chew all the tobacco you want, I could give a rat's a--, just don't spit on me. The list goes on... keep your 'habits' to yourself.Railroad said:
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
You have legs, move.Coaster said:
Fred Hoeck
New Member
This is an example of the post constutional era. In the 30's, when some people wanted to ban alcoholic drinks, it had to be done via an amendment to the Constitution which allowed the Congress to pass a law prohibiting alcohol. It was not done by central government fiat.
I think that ever since the "Equal Rights" amendment was not ratified by the required number of states, the left has shifted its efforts from the constitional amendment process to working through the courts and central government regulations.
As Justice Scalia said, the constutional amendment process was the right way to allow women to vote.
I think that ever since the "Equal Rights" amendment was not ratified by the required number of states, the left has shifted its efforts from the constitional amendment process to working through the courts and central government regulations.
As Justice Scalia said, the constutional amendment process was the right way to allow women to vote.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
Why should I be worried about your health? If your the one concerned, then you do something about it, not me.Coaster said:
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
Exactly, I am. If your concerned about your health then you do something about it. You go to the doctor to get check ups, you don't expect him to come to you.Masey said: