Thank God for Smoke Free Restaurants!

[MMDad]

It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone thinks. The MD legislature has already decided that there will be NO smoking in ANY bar, restaurant, or private club. O'Malley has already said he would sign a smoking ban.

It's over. In one year, smoking in these privately owned businesses will be against the law.

And we elected the legislature. Wanna see how they voted?

House:
http://mlis.state.md.us/2007RS/votes/house/0498.htm

Senate:
http://mlis.state.md.us/2007RS/votes/senate/0820.htm

 

[vraiblonde]

And we elected the legislature. Wanna see how they voted?]

Not surprising. I don't recognize most of the names on the roster (because I'm not that familiar with other counties' state representation) but it appears that it's right down party lines, give or take.

 

[dems4me]

Should we take a state-wide vote on how the Somd.com forums, classifieds and website in general should be run and what type of communication we should allow?

Because that's what it boils down to - the government taking control of small businesses.

I think it just sucks.... but here's what is proposed for the 2009 agenda...(here's an exerpt)

709.B.1(a) All websites owned by small businesses should have no blinking or moving banners (smilies included) as epileptic groups object

709.B.1(b)All websites owned by small businesses should have sound to assist the hearing impaired

709.B.1(c)All websites owned by small businesses should have font sizes bigger than 12 pt. to help those visually challenged

709.B.1(d)All websites owned by small businesses should only operate between 9-5 on M-F so that it can be easier to monitor by the government...

All this monitoring of course is because people can't choose for themselves which website to visit or not and which is more instep with their lifestyle and simply sticking to those. It's easier to have EVERYTHING the way they want it than for them to simply make a choice. It was made apparent by the no tolerance and no compromise movement of zealot nonsmokers who are unable to make a decision whether to go to a smoking establishment or one that was made nonsmoking by each particular establishment's owner - afterall that would involve that awful "c" word - "compromise".

I look at restaurants and bars as people's homes in a way... if its nonsmoking, I don't light up and respect their wishes, if it is than I'll smoke if I feel like it. Its what a person own's, not the government. When will these people have the government tell me I can't smoke in my house because I have people over... then those people get upset coming over to watch a Redskin game, contacts a wuzzy Senator or Congressman who then caves in and then there's a law that if you have guests over to your house you can't smoke. Why doesn't the person just decide not to come over any more to watch a Redskin game with me if smoke bothers them. As for the small business aspect, I still don't see how government can make this a clear cut decision - I think its outrageous. What part of "small business OWNER" is the government and the nonsmoking folks not understanding. I just don't think it's fair

I'm done.. I got real work to do now, ran out of tangent time for today

 

[dems4me]

Friendship Heights, in DC (just south of Bethesda) passed a law about no smoking in public, even outside. i know at one time there was a fight about the legality of the law (oxymoron if its a law its already legal) but i never knew the outcome of it.

I believe that.. when I lived in Bethesda they were trying to pass a law that smokers can't smoke in their cars. They said when you have the windows down and are at a stop light, the cars are close together and the smoke wafts from smokers car into another car and that was just plain offensive.

 

[Nanny Pam]

I believe that.. when I lived in Bethesda they were trying to pass a law that smokers can't smoke in their cars. They said when you have the windows down and are at a stop light, the cars are close together and the smoke wafts from smokers car into another car and that was just plain offensive.

Hey Dems ... did you start smoking again?

 

[Shetiger]

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.

 

[vraiblonde]

What part of "small business OWNER" is the government and the nonsmoking folks not understanding.

Socialists do not believe in "ownership". They think everything should be owned by a central government and doled out on a needs basis.

 

[dems4me]

I was doing some work at Chadwicks and went outside to use my (big as he!! cellphone ) and lit a cigarrette. the manager came out and told me about the law. this was in the late 90's

About the same time frame... I moved out of Bethesda in spring of 96.

 

[chuckster]

Negative. Already proven it has no affect and quite possibly improved business.

http://somdnews.com/stories/041107/indytop183646_32155.shtml

Conroy owns a bar in Prince George’s County, and he said business has dropped about 30 percent since that county’s smoking ban took effect a couple of years ago.

Gene Dillard, who owns the Double Eagle tavern in Waldorf, said it is not the Maryland General Assembly’s job to interfere in people’s personal freedoms, including smoking a legal product. Dillard said he expects to lose 20 percent to 40 percent of his business because most of his patrons smoke.

 

[mAlice]

This is how Dyson presented and described SB91

Another bill I am supporting is SB91. It would make it easier for residents concerned about permits issued by the Department of Environment to attend public meetings on such issues closer to where they live. These meetings, public hearings and contested case hearings, according to SB91 would be held "at a location in the political subdivision where the permit applies."

This means citizens interested in attending these public hearings and giving their valuable opinions on such matters would not have to travel long distances to attend the meetings. The meetings in which officials will discuss issues relevant to local citizens will be held nearby.

This is a perfect example of user-friendly government and I think it's a great piece of legislation.

 

[ylexot]

This is how Dyson presented and described SB91

What does this have to do with smoking in restaurants?

 

[Midnightrider]

What does this have to do with smoking in restaurants?

Nothing, she is siting the SB91 from the 1999 session......
http://mlis.state.md.us/1999rs/billfile/sb0091.htm

 

[forever jewel]

I'm really enjoying your feedback on this issue. I must add, however, that your logic does not suit their little bubble world.

Maybe if you came out of YOUR little bubble world, you'd realize your sources are out of date. Try finding current sources next time...possibly within the new millenium. That way, we will take any worthless opinions seriously...

...oh wait, that will never happen.

 

[ylexot]

Maybe if you came out of YOUR little bubble world, you'd realize your sources are out of date. Try finding current sources next time...possibly within the new millenium. That way, we will take any worthless opinions seriously...

...oh wait, that will never happen.

What sources are you referring to?

 

[forever jewel]

What sources are you referring to?

Refer to posts #173 and #175

 

[mAlice]

Maybe if you came out of YOUR little bubble world, you'd realize your sources are out of date. Try finding current sources next time...possibly within the new millenium. That way, we will take any worthless opinions seriously...

...oh wait, that will never happen.

I don't know what sources you're talking about, but history does have a way of teaching us not to make the same mistakes over and over.

Why would you take "worthless opinions" seriously? You mean like you expecting us to take you seriously?

 

[forever jewel]

I don't know what sources you're talking about, but history does have a way of teaching us not to make the same mistakes over and over.

Why would you take "worthless opinions" seriously? You mean like you expecting us to take you seriously?

I was referring to you, but as others have agreed, you're obviously too dense to realize it.

 

[mAlice]

Smoking Ban
Bill #: HB359
Year: 2007

Bill Summary:
Prohibiting a person from smoking tobacco products in indoor areas open to the public and places of employment; creating the Clean Indoor Air Act of 2007; requiring the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation to adopt regulations to implement the provisions of the prohibition; requiring these departments to report to the General Assembly; establishing civil penalties and fines for the violation of the Act; etc.

Smoking Ban - Tobacconists Exempt
Bill #: SB91
Year: 2007

Bill Summary:

Would create the Clean Indoor Air Act of 2007. Would prohibit smoking in indoor areas open to the public and places of employment. Would authorize the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation to adopt regulations to implement the provisions of the prohibition (full text unavailable).


I'm still trying to find where I was notified of the bill.

 

[mAlice]

Thank God for Smoke Fre... 04-11-2007 04:10 PM Just returning the favor. ~fj~

I knew you'd get around to it. See, it has nothing to do with someone being a coward. You just want to get even. Small and petty. Well, the jokes on you. I lied.

 

[ylexot]

Smoking Ban - Tobacconists Exempt
Bill #: SB91
Year: 2007

Ok, but the Dyson quote that you posted earlier was from 1999 and was unrelated to this SB91.