Thank God for Smoke Free Restaurants!

[awpitt]

You might want to explain that to McDonald's, who no longer "super-size" anything, even their sodas, because of litigation frenzy.

Activists should not be allowed to control the rest of the population. It's wrong and it's unAmerican.

It’s interesting that when folks get involved and go to capital hill or Annapolis to fight for something we agree with, we call them good leaders and involved citizens; however, when they go to capital hill or Annapolis to fight for something we disagree with, we call them activists, lobbyists, and special interests. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, if the smokers had banned together and got off their a_ses, instead of staying home and crying about the govt, they could’ve made a difference. Probably not killing the entire ban but maybe smoking could’ve been preserved in the so called stand-alone bars.

 

[awpitt]

Why is it that everytime I look at your screen name I see ARMpit? :shrug:

Oh I don't know. Maybe you need glasses. Haven't heard that one since elementary school.

 

[Bustem' Down]

It’s interesting that when folks get involved and go to capital hill or Annapolis to fight for something we agree with, we call them good leaders and involved citizens; however, when they go to capital hill or Annapolis to fight for something we disagree with, we call them activists, lobbyists, and special interests. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, if the smokers had banned together and got off their a_ses, instead of staying home and crying about the govt, they could’ve made a difference. Probably not killing the entire ban but maybe smoking could’ve been preserved in the so called stand-alone bars.

Doubtful. The MD government is run by Democrats who love to babysit. They would have passed the law in spite of opposition.

 

[Mousebaby]

Oh I don't know. Maybe you need glasses. Haven't heard that one since elementary school.

:stompingawaywithlipstickingout:

 

[julz20684]

Why is it that everytime I look at your screen name I see ARMpit? :shrug:

It's not just you who sees it that way.

 

[Midnightrider]

In your opinion it may not have infringed on anyone's rights, but it has certainly infringed on one's choices. Before this, you and I had a choice to go to a non-smoking establisment, or a smoking establishment. Now there is no choice. That's the simple fact that you nazi's seem unable to grasp.

you will still have the option to go to all those places, just not to smoke in them.

Like i said, i dont support the ban, and i see this as the forerunner of making tobacco illegal, but it doesn't really affect your choices very much, it just means you have to wait until after you finish eating before you can toke up, waiting 5 mins won't kill ya, neither will walking outside

 

[mAlice]

you will still have the option to go to all those places, just not to smoke in them.

Like i said, i dont support the ban, and i see this as the forerunner of making tobacco illegal, but it doesn't really affect your choices very much, it just means you have to wait until after you finish eating before you can toke up, waiting 5 mins won't kill ya, neither will walking outside

Going somewhere that didn't allow smoking wouldn't have killed the smoke nazi's, either. I don't want to go outside to smoke a cigarette. I'm paying for a relaxing, enjoyable experience. That includes relaxing with a cigarette after my meal, not exiled to the outside of a building, huddled around the corner trying to stay warm. Cigareetes are legal and I pay taxes on them. I should have a choice, not have all choices taken away.

 

[Qurious]

YAYYYYY!!!! FINALLLY!!!!

When I get glammed up and go out to eat at a nice restaurant, the last thing I want to do is coming out of there smelling like a chimney....

 

[Oz]

How about banning anybody that is retired also. I am tired of standing in line behind them as they count each penny and dime they have to fumble with to pay their bill

 

[Toxick]

Going somewhere that didn't allow smoking wouldn't have killed the smoke nazi's, either. I don't want to go outside to smoke a cigarette. I'm paying for a relaxing, enjoyable experience. That includes relaxing with a cigarette after my meal, not exiled to the outside of a building, huddled around the corner trying to stay warm. Cigareetes are legal and I pay taxes on them. I should have a choice, not have all choices taken away.

I agree with this post.



And I'm a non smoker.

I have NEVER gone into a conniption because of smoke. Never once has smoking EVER ruined my dining experience. None of my children have ever passed out from second hand smoke, and as of their last checkup, their lungs were perfect. As were mine during my last checkup.

All you prissy b!tches make me want to start smoking out of spite.

 

[Midnightrider]

Going somewhere that didn't allow smoking wouldn't have killed the smoke nazi's, either. I don't want to go outside to smoke a cigarette. I'm paying for a relaxing, enjoyable experience. That includes relaxing with a cigarette after my meal, not exiled to the outside of a building, huddled around the corner trying to stay warm. Cigareetes are legal and I pay taxes on them. I should have a choice, not have all choices taken away.

I guess i dont see the problem becasue i was always a considerate smoker. If i saw my smoke wafting towards someone i knew didn't smoke i would move away. When i quit, my friends on my various bar based leagues did the same thing for me, I usually said it didn't bother me and not to worry about it.

If going outside to smoke is your biggest complaint.....
well, i'll be on your side when they try to make it illegal.

 

[ylexot]

It doesn't; however, the Clean Air Act of 19 something-something set standards.

Ok, does the smoke in a restaurant exceed those standards?

 

[RoseRed]

All you prissy b!tches make me want to start smoking out of spite.

 

[Oz]

Anyone think that the smoking ban is happening aweful close to the end of the tobacco settlement with the State? Seems to me that you probably can't extort all of that cash from the tobacco companies and then do nothing about the supposed health problem that our state reaped a billion dollars from...

So if smoking isn't a health issue, then how can our state take all of that money in settlement of Marylanders health issues related to smoking?

Maybe these smoking laws are just to prevent the tobacco companies from taking legal action to get a refund...

 

[Roughidle]

I always thought diner food tasted a little bit better when there was a little cig. smoke swirling around and mixing with those fried onions smells.

 

[dems4me]

I'll throw this out there... instead of the government catering to everyone that whines about differences we all have in the human race and always will have, and we always will find things objectionable in other people. Why not focus on tolerance of others :shrug: I mean hasn't that always been a part of the democrat's platform - buzzwords like "tolerance" "diversity" :shrug: I see nothing wrong with having some restaurants smoke free and some with smoking - it gives everyone a choice.

As for the poor waiters and waitresses, they can choose to work in a smoke environment or not, no one is forcing them at gunpoint to work in a restaurant with smokers :shrug: There's other jobs out there if it offends them. :shrug: Basically if you don't like something don't hang around it :shrug: I think its very self-centered to think the world all around you can be whittled down and legislated to just the way YOU like it. I say teach tolerance and freedom of choice. If you don't like it tolerate it or go elsewhere or just choose not to patron the place to begin with. Just the same as any other environment you wouldn't want to be a part of :shrug:

The antismoking movement is starting to come across like the little blue girl on Willie Wonkie... "Me daddy!! Me!! Me!!! Me!!!" "I don't like it... make everyone else change Daddy!!! I can't simply choose not to patron a particular place... so make everything in the world change for ME!!!" What ever happened to give and take...having a choice, if folks didn't like something that wasn't catered to them to their likeing, they sucked it up, pulled up their big boy or girl panties and went elsewhere to place more in line of what they would like instead of demanding the world cater to them. Even if I wasn't a smoker, I'd still be upset with them taking away choices of group of people on behalf of another group and dictating what businesses now can or can't do ... I think in general we need to learn more about tolerance and compromise as we all are human and we all have faults.

JMO

 

[mAlice]

I'll throw this out there... instead of the government catering to everyone that whines about differences we all have in the human race and always will have, and we always will find things objectionable in other people. Why not focus on tolerance of others :shrug: I mean hasn't that always been a part of the democrat's platform - buzzwords like "tolerance" "diversity" :shrug: I see nothing wrong with having some restaurants smoke free and some with smoking - it gives everyone a choice.

As for the poor waiters and waitresses, they can choose to work in a smoke environment or not, no one is forcing them at gunpoint to work in a restaurant with smokers :shrug: There's other jobs out there if it offends them. :shrug: Basically if you don't like something don't hang around it :shrug: I think its very self-centered to think the world all around you can be whittled down and legislated to just the way YOU like it. I say teach tolerance and freedom of choice. If you don't like it tolerate it or go elsewhere or just choose not to patron the place to begin with. Just the same as any other environment you wouldn't want to be a part of :shrug:

The antismoking movement is starting to come across like the little blue girl on Willie Wonkie... "Me daddy!! Me!! Me!!! Me!!!" "I don't like it... make everyone else change Daddy!!! I can't simply choose not to patron a particular place... so make everything in the world change for ME!!!" What ever happened to give and take...having a choice, if folks didn't like something that wasn't catered to them to their likeing, they sucked it up, pulled up their big boy or girl panties and went elsewhere to place more in line of what they would like instead of demanding the world cater to them. Even if I wasn't a smoker, I'd still be upset with them taking away choices of group of people on behalf of another group and dictating what businesses now can or can't do ... I think in general we need to learn more about tolerance and compromise as we all are human and we all have faults.

JMO

Well said, dems.

 

[RoseRed]

I cannot picture [voicebox] at Lone Star working at a more upscale non-smoking restaurant like the Tides or the Dry Dock.

 

[awpitt]

Doubtful. The MD government is run by Democrats who love to babysit. They would have passed the law in spite of opposition.

Doubtful? Yes. Definite? No. And we’ll never know because the smoking lobby was weak during this whole episode. The biggest opposition to the smoking ban was within these forums. You can blame it on the Dems or someone else as long as it’s not you to blame. I’d be interested to know what efforts the pro-smokers here made in order to fight this thing. BTW, “The Dems are in power so I didn’t bother” is not a real answer.

 

[LadyLape]

I mean who really wants to be in a bar and not smoke !! I know folks who only smoke when they drink and I know smokers who have enough common curtousy not to smoke until after there meal away from the family or friends "outside or at the bar if there is one. People that have so many issues with the public and other people SHOULD JUST PLAIN STAY HOME ANY WAY!!! I mean do we really need to have our county and governments involved in this topic OR SHOULD THE FOCUS REALLY BE THE SCHOOLS IN MD???? something to think about hey all you non-smokers will have plenty of restraunts for your children to work at because there not enough teachers or money in the budget for our kids btu there will be plenty of smoke free enviroments for them to work at