Smoking Ban in MD

[C6R_Mag]

Not the market, THE OWNER OF HIS/HERS OWN ESTABLISHMENT! It's his/hers establishment not the state's. They own it and should be able to make their own rules not set by the suppressive gov't. It's communism at it's best.

Did we forget what this country was founded on?

Regardless of who owns the business there is still laws and codes they have to abide by. There is fire code that says how many people can be in an establishment. Are you going to argue that these fire codes keep the business from making as much money as they can? It's there for safety. Would you argue that there are health standards in restuarants. Or would it be better for someone to serve food out of a rat and roach infested kitchen?

The laws are made in the interest of public health.

So many people on here throw around the idea of communism. Is that just an easy way out? I won't lie, i think it's rediculous some of the taxes we pay in Maryland, BUT I still stay here. It's just the way of life dealing with this stuff. How many people that hate how our country are actually proactive in doing something about it? Maybe we can just do the old American way and b!tch b!tch b!tch, take advantage of what we can and complain about the rest.

 

[C6R_Mag]

First off, you're limp wristed and need to be a MAN every once in a while. How about you just go to one of these countries you're talking about and stay.

And learn grammar as well, lmao! Capitols aren't the only thing in cities!

I'm limp wristed?? lol. that's funny. apparently you take offense to the smoking ban. exactly how do you come to the conclusion that i need to be a man? honestly, i can tell you just got all steamed up and could think of nothing intelligent to say except a few lame put-downs. next time, do yourself a favor and take a few deep breaths and think about what you would like to say before you just vent out .

furthermore, grammar is the study of the way the sentences of a language are constructed; morphology and syntax. you may have meant punctuation, but that's ok. or maybe you meant spelling, because capitals are cities or the upper case letter. capitol is a building occupied by a state legislature. this is a forum not a term paper. thanks teach!

 

[PsyOps]

Regardless of who owns the business there is still laws and codes they have to abide by. There is fire code that says how many people can be in an establishment. Are you going to argue that these fire codes keep the business from making as much money as they can? It's there for safety. Would you argue that there are health standards in restuarants. Or would it be better for someone to serve food out of a rat and roach infested kitchen?

The laws are made in the interest of public health.

There is a difference between what is a health hazard that affects our safety and what is unhealthy. Fires and insects and vermin are health hazards. These require laws. Loud obnoxious metal music, perfume, cholesterol-laden food, and cigarettes are potentially unhealthy (depending on one’s point-of-view). If you don’t like these things you don’t have to go. The choice is yours. If this affects a business by pushing customers away the owner will change their policy.

So many people on here throw around the idea of communism. Is that just an easy way out? I won't lie, i think it's rediculous some of the taxes we pay in Maryland, BUT I still stay here. It's just the way of life dealing with this stuff. How many people that hate how our country are actually proactive in doing something about it? Maybe we can just do the old American way and b!tch b!tch b!tch, take advantage of what we can and complain about the rest.

I need our government to protect me from what is a health hazard, but I don’t need them telling me what they interpret as unhealthy. I can make up my own mind about this. The argument about us moving closer to a communist state is the concern that our our government believes they know what is better for us than we know ourselves. I’m proactive in not voting for people that want to dictate these terms to me. Once I am able I intend to move out of this state. It doesn’t end with just cigarettes. It doesn’t just end in public establishments. Parts of California have already enacted laws that ban smoking in homes.

It's Official -- Belmont Bans Smoking In Some Homes

The ordinance passed on a 3-2 vote and will go into effect in 30 days, according to City Manager Jack Crist.

The ordinance was introduced by the City Council on Sept. 11, and then approved with a few wording changes at its Sept. 25 meeting.

Thought to be the first of its kind in California, the ordinance declares secondhand smoke a public nuisance and extends the city's current smoking ban to include multi-unit, multi-story residences.

Though Belmont and some other California cities already restrict smoking in multi-unit common areas, Belmont is the first city to extend secondhand smoke regulation to the inside of individual apartment units.

Note this article doesn’t even address the health aspect of it. They simply state that smoking is a “public nuisance”.

Maryland has moved towards the same “nanny-state” mentality. It’s only a matter of time.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

Any bars out of business yet?

I believe that was a prediction long ago.

Casey's took about a 33% hit in business right off the get go when La Plata passed their law.

Some bars in La Plata were exempt, I guess that's fair.

But then again, laws in this town are irregularly enforced.

 

[Dork]

I think it's about time!!!!!

Isn't making a smoking section in a restaurant like making a peeing section in a swimming pool?

My wife and I actually went to a restaurant/bar last night for a drink and an appetizer. She used to insist we didn't sit anywhere near the bar because of the smoke. We sat at the bar, enjoyed our drinks and crab dip and left without smelling like an ashtray. I kinda like the new law.

 

[Larry Gude]

That...

Isn't making a smoking section in a restaurant like making a peeing section in a swimming pool?

...is a perfect analogy!

In both cases it's the idea of it, not any health risk, that people want legislation to protect them from.

 

[C6R_Mag]

There is a difference between what is a health hazard that affects our safety and what is unhealthy.....

I need our government to protect me from what is a health hazard, but I don’t need them telling me what they interpret as unhealthy.

I'm confused about that statement? The government has determined that smoking is a health hazard. Look on the side of the box.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes...

I'm confused about that statement? The government has determined that smoking is a health hazard. Look on the side of the box.

...smoking is not ideal for your health. Nor is red meat or alcohol or asbestos or Jazz music or vehicle exhaust or excess stress over worry about cigarette smoke.

The point is a specious government interest has been interjected into private affairs due to the argument over second hand smoke. This type thing should send a chill through any one's spine who thinks there should be limits on government power.

 

[aps45819]

I'm confused about that statement? The government has determined that smoking is a health hazard. Look on the side of the box.

If that were true, why would they allow the sale of a deadly susbstance?
Are you saying the people that are elected to serve are are just whores looking to control tax money?

 

[awpitt]

So how do you feel about the Smoking Ban in Maryland?

I'm glad the ban is in place. It's been much more pleasent eating out these days. The private sector had years and years to address this issue and failed; therefore, the govt reacted to public pressure and came up with the ban. I do wish a modification would be made to exempt "stand-alone" bars.

 

[awpitt]

I smoked for 37 years, and when I quit I swore I wouldn't be one of those ex-smokers with an attitude. And I still keep my mouth shut. But secondhand smoke really bothers me now, not just because it smells bad. I get a whiff of that stuff and my throat closes up. I have a neighbor who smokes in his front porch; somehow the smoke blows across the road and into my house whenever my windows are open, even when there's no apparent breeze. Very frustrating, but I haven't said anything about it.

So in a restaurant setting, it certainly does bother me when somebody lights up and I'm eating. I remember that when I was smoking, I couldn't understand how anyone could be bothered that badly by my smoke and I honestly thought they were making a big deal out of nothing. Same applies to smoking near the entrance to a public building like a supermarket; I thought, since I was outside, that it was definitely not a big deal - now I hold my breath when I walk into a supermarket.

Now I know better, not because of anything anyone said, but by the way I react to the smoke. So, I have to say that I now understand the anti-smoking changes being made. This is not to say that I think it's government's place to infringe on anyone's rights, however. On the other hand, upholding someone else's rights...?

So I'm on the fence with the issue itself, but in personal experience I really dislike putting up with secondhand smoke.

It seems that some consideration on the part of certain smokers could've prevented this issue from getting to the point where the ban had so much support, which it did. I used to smoke up to three packs a day at one point. Even then, I never smoked where people were eating and I never smoked around my kids.

 

[Larry Gude]

Consideration?

It seems that some consideration on the part of certain smokers could've prevented this issue from getting to the point where the ban had so much support, which it did. I used to smoke up to three packs a day at one point. Even then, I never smoked where people were eating and I never smoked around my kids.

Like what? Like smoking sections? Like reducing that down to just the bar area? Tony, this is the worst nature of a free people; the desire to impose upon others over petty issues. To suggest that is smokers were more considerate this would have never happened confirms that's all this is; get even.

No one ever said murders could keep it up if they were more thoughtful about how they went about it.

 

[awpitt]

Like what? Like smoking sections? Like reducing that down to just the bar area? Tony, this is the worst nature of a free people; the desire to impose upon others over petty issues. To suggest that is smokers were more considerate this would have never happened confirms that's all this is; get even.

No one ever said murders could keep it up if they were more thoughtful about how they went about it.

Yes, consideration. You're right that there might be a bit of "get even" involved here. If certain smokers were more considerate of others, there would not have been so much public support for a ban. The legislature didn't just dream this up one morning. It came as a result of constituant mail and phone calls. If the public support wasn't there, it ban would've never passed. There are smokers out there who are considerate of those around them and realize their habit doesn't majically confine itself to a three foot radius around them so they act accordingly. Then there are those smokers who don't give a sh*t about anyone else and basically blow smoke in people's faces.

 

[Larry Gude]

How...

Yes, consideration. You're right that there might be a bit of "get even" involved here. If certain smokers were more considerate of others, there would not have been so much public support for a ban. The legislature didn't just dream this up one morning. It came as a result of constituant mail and phone calls. If the public support wasn't there, it ban would've never passed. There are smokers out there who are considerate of those around them and realize their habit doesn't majically confine itself to a three foot radius around them so they act accordingly. Then there are those smokers who don't give a sh*t about anyone else and basically blow smoke in people's faces.

...many times, in your whole life, has someone blown smoke in your face?

How many times, in your life, has someone passed a law against you?

 

[awpitt]

...many times, in your whole life, has someone blown smoke in your face?

Several, no exact count though. And they don't even act like they're doing anything rude.

How many times, in your life, has someone passed a law against you?

Not me personally but most speed limits are lower than I'd like and there are gun laws out there that I think are over reaching. I'm sure there are others.

 

[vraiblonde]

If the public support wasn't there, it ban would've never passed.

Actually, we don't know that because we weren't allowed to vote on the issue. The kids in Annapolis decided for us.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

Several, no exact count though. And they don't even act like they're doing anything rude.

Not me personally but most speed limits are lower than I'd like and there are gun laws out there that I think are over reaching. I'm sure there are others.

...so let's play the pedantic game.

What, if anything, do you do and enjoy and feel you have a right to do that some might thing is unhealthy and might wish to ban because they don't like it and don't want you to do it?

For example; Smoke in bars.

 

[vraiblonde]

The private sector had years and years to address this issue and failed; therefore, the govt reacted to public pressure and came up with the ban.

Think about that. "The private sector didn't want to ban something in their place of business, so the government did it for them."

That's pretty scary.

 

[Larry Gude]

Irrelevant...

Actually, we don't know that because we weren't allowed to vote on the issue. The kids in Annapolis decided for us.

...your honor; this is a constitutional matter, not one of popular support. There was a time when slavery was fully supported by the majority as was the prohibition on women voting. The purpose of a constitution is to define individual rights whether the mob likes it or not.

Is it fair for the state to ban smoking in bars? No, because it is unconstitutional. Would it be fair to vote on it publicly? No, because the public also has limited interest and business meddling in private matters.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah...

Think about that. "The private sector didn't want to ban something in their place of business, so the government did it for them."

That's pretty scary.

...but you bastards blew smoke in someones face.