Montgomery County Smoking Ban

tlatchaw

Not dead yet.
I know, I know, Monkey County isn't SoMD. The lady that is pushing a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants up there said something interesting on the news this morning. To paraphrase, "85% of Marylanders do not smoke, so why should we cater to the 15% that do?"

I wonder how this would play out if you changed smoking to some other lifestyle choice? Try the terms "Gay" or "Muslim" or "Mormon" or suggest some others. It's not pretty (by the way I don't support banning Gays, Muslims or Mormons, those descriptions just came to mind). What to do?

:confused:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
One of the reasons we have a Representative Republic is so we don't have 5 wolves and 1 sheep deciding on what to have for dinner. Those "85%ers" are just going to have to get over it.
 

T.Rally

New Member
Originally posted by vraiblonde
One of the reasons we have a Representative Republic is so we don't have 5 wolves and 1 sheep deciding on what to have for dinner. Those "85%ers" are just going to have to get over it.
I think you are mistaken. I think the smoking "15%ers" are the ones that will have to get over it. I don't agree with it but the reality is, its coming.
 
Originally posted by cariblue
It's kind of sad, really. Just think, some day there will be so many rules you won't want to do anything outside of your home.
Forget want, you won't be able to do anything outside your home, and only approved activities inside.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Let's see the same science that says second hand smoke is harmful says that smoking is addictive and addictions are considered disabilities. So how about an ADA lawsuit preventing discrimination against these disabled folk?

Use the liberal laws they have passed against them.
 

T.Rally

New Member
Originally posted by Ken King
Let's see the same science that says second hand smoke is harmful says that smoking is addictive and addictions are considered disabilities.
You know darn well the libs will create some social program for smokers to kick the habit. Then we'll all be moaning and groaning about our taxes having to pay for such crap. Viscous circle isn't it?
 

SurfaceTension

New Member
Smoking Ban Urged For All of Maryland

Bill to Cover Interior of Public Places

By Darragh Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 17, 2003; Page B07


Maryland lawmakers vowed yesterday to push for a statewide ban on smoking inside public places, hoping to build on support for such measures in Montgomery County and other communities.

"Secondhand smoke kills 53,000 nonsmokers each year" in the United States, said state Sen. Ida G. Ruben (D-Montgomery). Noting that, according to figures from Maryland's health department, 85 percent of adults in the state do not smoke, she suggested that an even higher percentage of diners must want the ban.

If a statewide ban passed, Maryland would join Delaware, New York, Maine, Connecticut, Massachusetts and California in prohibiting smoking inside certain places. The ban could include not only bars and restaurants but also sports arenas, bowling alleys, gyms, nursing homes and many hotel rooms.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6501-2003Dec16?language=printer
 

jlabsher

Sorry about that chief.
Hey, you can't blame the libs alone for this. Remember there is nothing worse than a reformed anything (sinner, drinker or smoker) they want everybody else to join them.

Actually, stupidity is catching, we should outlaw it!
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Originally posted by tlatchaw
To paraphrase, "85% of Marylanders do not smoke, so why should we cater to the 15% that do?"

Yeah, that statistic sounds fishy. Just guessing, I would say it's probably closer to 60% who don't and 40% who do. And among people 12 and older, probably 50/50.

I don't approve of the ban either. True, I don't want me or my family breathing that nasty cig smoke when we're at a restaurant, because I worry about my babies getting asthma from that. We just choose to eat at restaurants that choose not to allow smoking.

But if Maryland really wants to protect non-smokers, the state should just require restaurants that do allow smoking to install separate ventilation systems for the smoking areas, to contain the smoke. That ventilation would be expensive for some existing restaurants, so something like that could be phased in, and I would sweeten the deal by offering no-interest loans to help with the installation cost.

I wouldn't require separate ventilation for bars. For one thing, kids aren't (or shouldn't) be in bars in the first place. For another, the drink bone is connected to the smoke bone--most people who do one also do the other.
 
Last edited:

T.Rally

New Member
Tonio - You and your family are not who these bans are about. The smoking bans are meant to protect the restaurant and bar employee. They're saying that because bans are already in place in areas like office buildings for instance, what makes an office employee's health more valuable than a restaurant employee's health? The rationale being, if we are going to ban smoking under the guise of employee protection than we ought to protect all employees.
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Originally posted by T.Rally
Tonio - You and your family are not who these bans are about.

If the ban is not meant to protect patrons, than what the hell good is it in the first place? People who accept jobs in smoking establishments know full well that they'll be exposed to secondhand smoke. In fact, I doubt that non-smokers would even be interested in working in places like that. Are the smoking restaurants required to disclose to potential hires that they would be exposed to smoke?
 

T.Rally

New Member
Originally posted by Tonio
If the ban is not meant to protect patrons, than what the hell good is it in the first place? People who accept jobs in smoking establishments know full well that they'll be exposed to secondhand smoke. In fact, I doubt that non-smokers would even be interested in working in places like that. Are the smoking restaurants required to disclose to potential hires that they would be exposed to smoke?
I agree with you, its ridiculous. My understanding, though, is its about worker protection.
 

Grimtooth

New Member
Secondhand smoke kills 53,000 nonsmokers each year" in the United States, said state Sen. Ida G. Ruben (D-Montgomery).


I have yet to see a death certificate stating cause of death as 2nd hand smoke.

Granted it could be attributted but then again so can vehicle exhaust fumes for that matter and practically every smoker and non smoker have to travel by some form of vehicle. And unless they are Amish I would wager that they are in exhaust fumes by choice and will not allow a ban on vehicles in public places. They are hypocrits in action...

Grimtooth...
 
C

Chicagofan

Guest
I have to agree with GrimTooth. There is NO proof that people die from second hand smoke or that it causes cancer, there is only the possibility.

It's funny too that when you go into a restaurant that has a smoking section it seems to fill up first. I respect the wishes of people that don't smoke but they should also respect ours. Most of us have been smoking over twenty years, it's a real "hard habit to break", and you have to want to do it.
I think people need to concern themselves more with alcohol and what it can do to you. I don't drink so why should I have to sit in a place where people are drinking and getting loud and obnoxious? I don't go to bars because I don't drink, but just because I don't care for it doesn't mean that other people shouldn't do it if they enjoy it.
Nobody is going to die because I get in my car and drive after I've had a cigarette.
 

Warron

Member
Originally posted by Grimtooth
Secondhand smoke kills 53,000 nonsmokers each year" in the United States, said state Sen. Ida G. Ruben (D-Montgomery).

I have yet to see a death certificate stating cause of death as 2nd hand smoke.

Most of these statistics are fabricated in my opinion. The studies used to validate them tend to use the term "smoking related death". The "related" term pretty much gives away there there is no direct evidence to support the claim. You also notice in these studies that they can have a pretty broad definition of what is "smoking related". Its commonly, anyone who has ever smoked or been exposed to smoke and has died. A very large percentage of these deaths are poeple at or well beyond the average human lifespan. But when 90 year olds, who smoke, die, its still smoking related for these studies.

One more comment. What do you think about all the problems cites like New York are having regarding loss of patrons in resturants and bars and crowds of people standing outside smoking? If Montgomery county passes this ban, will 50% of the people just go elsewhere as has happened in other places?
 
Last edited:

Otter

Nothing to see here
SOMETHING TO CHEW ON

(swiped from one of the web sites cited above)

Always keep in mind that "correlation" does not mean "causation." Once you have that firmly planted in your scientific consciousness, take the following into consideration when assessing the weight of the medical accusations leveled at secondhand smoke and what can happen if you are exposed to it.

1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users.

2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.

3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the
average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were
unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations.

4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of
eating bread.

5. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat, begged for bread after as little as two days.

6. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such
as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cream cheese.

7. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey,
bread-pudding person.

8. Newborn babies can choke on bread.

9. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 450 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than two minutes.

10. Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between
significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling...
 
Top