Smoking Ban in MD

How do you feel about the Smoking Ban?

  • Unaffected

    Votes: 20 20.4%

  • About time. Get those filthy smokers outside

    Votes: 49 50.0%

  • I hate it! You have no right to tell me.

    Votes: 31 31.6%
  • Total voters
    98
  • Poll closed .
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Now that the weather has warmed up, there are plenty of restaurants/bars where smokers can go. So I have to say that the smoking ban hasn't really affected me, and you all enjoy your indoor air quality this summer, ya hear? :yay:

(However, I do anticipate that once the MD legislature and MOM get wind of us smoking heathens down here in God's Country actually enjoying ourselves, they will put a stop to that right quick.)
 
tommyjones

tommyjones

New Member
Larry Gude said:
...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.
Click to expand...

by that argument herione and cocaine shold be legal.... pursuit of happiness and all
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Well...

vraiblonde said:
Now that the weather has warmed up, there are plenty of restaurants/bars where smokers can go. So I have to say that the smoking ban hasn't really affected me, and you all enjoy your indoor air quality this summer, ya hear? :yay:

(However, I do anticipate that once the MD legislature and MOM get wind of us smoking heathens down here in God's Country actually enjoying ourselves, they will put a stop to that right quick.)
Click to expand...

...just think; What if one of YOU people exhaled near an air conditioner intake, hmm??? What then??? It would be like dropping red die into a goldfish bowl.

:jameo:
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
And one more thing:

What's funny is that the Pier has a tent on their deck that had the sides down the other day. The nons sit in there at the bar, and the smokers sit in the outside tables near the water. So, basically, the smokers get the good seats while the nons get to sit in a bubble where they belong.

:roflmao:
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
We'll...

vraiblonde said:
And one more thing:

What's funny is that the Pier has a tent on their deck that had the sides down the other day. The nons sit in there at the bar, and the smokers sit in the outside tables near the water. So, basically, the smokers get the good seats while the nons get to sit in a bubble where they belong.

:roflmao:
Click to expand...

...see about that, too. Anything else you enjoy that needs some governmental intervention?
 
tommyjones

tommyjones

New Member
Larry Gude said:
...beware; if you injure or cause injury to another due to irresponsible drug use, you will suffer the consequences. So, get high? Stay the hell home.
Click to expand...

isnt that the whole idea of the smoking ban, to prevent the potential injury of non smokers?????
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Larry Gude said:
...just think; What if one of YOU people exhaled near an air conditioner intake, hmm???
Click to expand...

Actually, what will happen is some disgruntled non-smoker will decide it's not fair that they can't sit outside by the water without having some smelly smoker sitting next to them. They will write their CongressCritter, who will propose an amendment to the the smoking ban that includes ALL property within an x-foot radius of the restaurant/bar. This will also make the folks happy who don't want to walk by smokers when they enter a bar/restaurant.

I predict this will happen within a year.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
If...

tommyjones said:
isnt that the whole idea of the smoking ban, to prevent the potential injury of non smokers?????
Click to expand...

...that were the case, baning alcohol in bars would do FAR more public good than the specious claims of the evils of second hand smoke and make even more sense, but still be no more appropriate a role for government. How about the poor bastard who has to breathe burning hamburger every day? Ban that?

The claims of second hand smoke injury are a cause in search of justification. Not a problem in search of a cure.
 
tommyjones

tommyjones

New Member
i'm not going to argue the science behind second hand smoke, but logic tells you that breathing in smoke its not good for you, while there might be a magic level where it becomes a major hazard, it is logical that any inhaleation increases your chances of injury.
 
awpitt

awpitt

Main Streeter
vraiblonde said:
Actually, we don't know that because we weren't allowed to vote on the issue. The kids in Annapolis decided for us.
Click to expand...
Well, let's put it this way. The legislation developed as a result of people calling and mailing there delegates and senator. On the state level, it's not hard, at all, to call or email ones state delegate or senator. In fact, I talked with mine last week. Over time, this public input resulted in the introduction and sponorship of the legislation. Without the public input, there would've been no legislation.

Maryland has a process to have this placed on referendum. This would require those against the ban to move from the biatching phase into the effort phase because it requires a certain number of signatures from each county.
 
MMDad

MMDad

Lem Putt
tommyjones said:
i'm not going to argue the science behind second hand smoke, but logic tells you that breathing in smoke its not good for you, while there might be a magic level where it becomes a major hazard, it is logical that any inhaleation increases your chances of injury.
Click to expand...

Should the legislature be acting on "logic tells you" or should they act on proven scientific data?

Guess what the data proves.... :whistle:
 
MMDad

MMDad

Lem Putt
awpitt said:
Well, let's put it this way. The legislation developed as a result of people calling and mailing there delegates and senator. On the state level, it's not hard, at all, to call or email ones state delegate or senator. In fact, I talked with mine last week. Over time, this public input resulted in the introduction and sponorship of the legislation. Without the public input, there would've been no legislation.

Maryland has a process to have this placed on referendum. This would require those against the ban to move from the biatching phase into the effort phase because it requires a certain number of signatures from each county.
Click to expand...

The vocal few have created a law that affects the apathetic many. Just like gay rights, AIDS research, and so many other "noble causes."
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Logic...

tommyjones said:
i'm not going to argue the science behind second hand smoke, but logic tells you that breathing in smoke its not good for you, while there might be a magic level where it becomes a major hazard, it is logical that any inhaleation increases your chances of injury.
Click to expand...

...also tells you actually sucking smoke down first hand isn't exactly cyanide either. And there is no 'magic' level because logic and experience tell us so.

No one is fighting to smoke in the hospital or grocery store or shopping center. Smoking. In bars. IN BARS is now illegal in the FREE state.
 
awpitt

awpitt

Main Streeter
vraiblonde said:
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.
Click to expand...
Left unchecked, some in the private sector wouldn't bother with things like maintaining clean kitchens or fire safety, etc. so the govt does it for them.

There is no Constitutional "right" to smoke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top