Smoking Ban in MD

[tommyjones]

Smoking does. Is that was this ban is about, though? Smoking? Or second hand smoke?

What does the data on second hand smoke show? (yes, I know. I want to see if you know.)

it depends on what study you look at.


i know that the level of smoke in bars has caused me direct affects in the past, that enough for me......

besides, you can still smoke if you want to

 

[Larry Gude]

Enough...

i know that the level of smoke in bars has caused me direct affects in the past, that enough for me......

...for you to what? Not go to bars?

 

[Larry Gude]

Not...

it
besides, you can still smoke if you want to

...in BARS you can't.

 

[tommyjones]

...in BARS you can't.

so, you can't do a lot of things in bars.....

 

[awpitt]

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

Then the apathetic "many" should've spoken up. If they want to blame someone, they can look in the mirror. Again, this is about moving from the biatching phase to the effort phase. Just like the 911 house picture taking project the St. Mary's Cty Comm were getting ready to do. People got up off there rear ends, put forth effort, spoke up and the commissioners listened.

 

[tommyjones]

...for you to what? Not go to bars?

enough for me to know its bad for me.

 

[Larry Gude]

If...

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 eat dirty food prepared in a dirty kitchen you are going to get sick and maybe die. If you sit next to a smoker for two hours while discussing smoking bans, you're gonna smell like smoke.

Your view of the Constitution and rights is incorrect. Our Constitution places limits on the government, not the people. If someone enjoys smoking, which they do, and it does not harm you, which it does not, AND you are free to be around the smoke or not, both parties are free.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah...

enough for me to know its bad for me.

...so what would a reasonable solution be?

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

so, you can't do a lot of things in bars.....

...bars are for drinking and smoking and eating and talking and socializing.

What can't you do at a bar that you should be able to do? Besides smoke?

 

[tommyjones]

...so what would a reasonable solution be?

for people not to smoke inside public places.....

seems quite resonable, you stil get to smoke, you just cant do it where you affect other people.....

 

[Larry Gude]

But...

for people not to smoke inside public places.....

seems quite resonable, you stil get to smoke, you just cant do it where you affect other people.....

...what if I want to drink a beer inside and you don't like that?

 

[tommyjones]

...bars are for drinking and smoking and eating and talking and socializing.

What can't you do at a bar that you should be able to do? Besides smoke?

bars aren't for smoking, they are for drinking adn socializing

 

[tommyjones]

...what if I want to drink a beer inside and you don't like that?

you are just being obtuse....

 

[MMDad]

it depends on what study you look at.


i know that the level of smoke in bars has caused me direct affects in the past, that enough for me......

besides, you can still smoke if you want to

I like being able to go anywhere and not smell smoke. I'm an ex-smoker, and we tend to be the worst about smoke. But more important, I believe the government should not impose restrictions on a segment of society based solely on the opinions of a vocal few who cannot back up their opinions with solid scientific data.

This is being sold as a workplace safety issue. Every other harmful substance has exposure limits set to protect workers. Even exposure to smoke from every other source is required to be kept below permissible levels. Not tobacco smoke, though. It's special for some reason.

We have totally bypassed all of the existing policies and procedures and just banned the substance from the workplace. What they should have done, if they want to protect non-smokers, is set exposure limits. Then each establishment could either provide adequate ventilation or find another way to comply.

 

[tommyjones]

I like being able to go anywhere and not smell smoke. I'm an ex-smoker, and we tend to be the worst about smoke. But more important, I believe the government should not impose restrictions on a segment of society based solely on the opinions of a vocal few who cannot back up their opinions with solid scientific data.

This is being sold as a workplace safety issue. Every other harmful substance has exposure limits set to protect workers. Even exposure to smoke from every other source is required to be kept below permissible levels. Not tobacco smoke, though. It's special for some reason.

We have totally bypassed all of the existing policies and procedures and just banned the substance from the workplace. What they should have done, if they want to protect non-smokers, is set exposure limits. Then each establishment could either provide adequate ventilation or find another way to comply.

there is solid scientific data to indicate that cigarette smoke causes cancer.

 

[awpitt]

...you eat dirty food prepared in a dirty kitchen you are going to get sick and maybe die. If you sit next to a smoker for two hours while discussing smoking bans, you're gonna smell like smoke.

Your view of the Constitution and rights is incorrect. Our Constitution places limits on the government, not the people. If someone enjoys smoking, which they do, and it does not harm you, which it does not, AND you are free to be around the smoke or not, both parties are free.

Sorry Larry but my view of the Constitution and rights is not incorrect. We may differ here but that doesn't make my view incorrect. Smoking, when done correctly, is harmful. That includes the 2nd hand stuff. Have any of the smoking bans around the country been challenged in court? If a smoking ban is, in fact, unconstitutional one would think they would've been shot down by now in the courts.

 

[This_person]

We have totally bypassed all of the existing policies and procedures and just banned the substance from the workplace. What they should have done, if they want to protect non-smokers, is set exposure limits. Then each establishment could either provide adequate ventilation or find another way to comply.

This makes a great deal of logic and sense. Government would never buy it

 

[vraiblonde]

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.

I'm not going to fight City Hall to be able to smoke in someone else's place of business. If the bar/restaurant owner wanted my money, they'd have taken it upon themselves to make their establishment attractive to me.

But, again, I couldn't care less. My deck is the best bar/restaurant in town, with everything I need to be happy, and a heck of a lot cheaper, too. No fighting drunks, no screaming children, no clueless waitrons.

:shrug:

 

[vraiblonde]

There is no Constitutional "right" to smoke.

Nor is there a Constitutional "right" to eat in a restaurant without having smokers nearby.

 

[awpitt]

...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.

Personally, I think the ban went too far when it included "stand alone" bars. I don't have a problem with the ban in eating establishments. When I smoked I never smoked around people who were eating. If I were still a smoker when the ban was still going through the legislative process, I would've been fighting it at the state level to have bars exempted.