You don't get one. Welcome to Maryland.Dutch6 said:
Tyrants in Maryland do it again
- Thread starter 2ndAmendment
- Start date
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Using the logic...
...that bans smoking in restaurants and what foods they can serve, yes.
The judiciary are the last line of governmental restraint. Government banning of smoking in a business or home is clearly a violation of the IV amendment;
Smoking IS legal. There is no right to sieze the right to smoke from a home or an individual.
vraiblonde said:
...that bans smoking in restaurants and what foods they can serve, yes.
The judiciary are the last line of governmental restraint. Government banning of smoking in a business or home is clearly a violation of the IV amendment;
Smoking IS legal. There is no right to sieze the right to smoke from a home or an individual.
This is merely an attempt by non-smoking establishments to level the playing field. On any night you can go to Glory Days Grill in Frederick and it is packed to the gills. They allow smoking. Contrast that to the non-smoking Bonefish Grill right next door that is like a ghost town.
Jennifer's, another restaurant in downtown Frederick recently went non-smoking, and you can now get a seat in there anytime you like, including prime time on a Friday. Every other restaurant downtown has a waiting list at that time.
I was talking to a St. Mary's restaurant owner a few years ago when they first proposed the smoking ban and he said he was all for it and hoped it passed. Said if it were up to him, he'd make his restaurant non-smoking right now. I replied that it IS up to him, and he said that he couldn't do that because then smokers would go somewhere else and he'd lose business.
Jennifer's, another restaurant in downtown Frederick recently went non-smoking, and you can now get a seat in there anytime you like, including prime time on a Friday. Every other restaurant downtown has a waiting list at that time.
I was talking to a St. Mary's restaurant owner a few years ago when they first proposed the smoking ban and he said he was all for it and hoped it passed. Said if it were up to him, he'd make his restaurant non-smoking right now. I replied that it IS up to him, and he said that he couldn't do that because then smokers would go somewhere else and he'd lose business.
What part of that don't you get?PsyOps said:
If you went into a bar where the music was loud and people were dancing and enjoying themselves, would you insist they turn off the music if it was annoying you?
What part of "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" is beyond your comprehension?
PsyOps
Pixelated
My argument extends beyond restaraunts and other establiments. Smokes always feel their rights are being infringed upon whenever someone even speaks of banning smoking. There is an obviouos reason you can't go into establishments and spit your chew on the foor. It's for health reasons. But for some reason you smokers have convinced so many that there are no health consequences to others (or even yourselves) with your second-hand smoke. Well, you're losing the battle and you just can't stand it, so you havwe to throw the old "it's my right" in everyone's face. Well, I'm sorry Vrai, it's not your right to make everyone else smoke with you. I went to the new Outback in PF a few weeks back and someone on the other side of the partition was smoking. We had already started eating. It ruined our meal. And you see it as your right to ruin my meal just because that place allows smoking. I just find it completely lacking in courtesy.vraiblonde said:
PsyOps
Pixelated
Because the same should apply to smokers. If you don't like the fact that I don't smoke, go somewhere else. But it's the non-smokers that are forced to make the decision. It's like I said before (in an old thread) , if I am behind you in the WalMart parking lot and you are smoking and I happen to get behind you and you blow your smoke all over me, I should have the same right to walk up in front of you and dump the rest of my coke on your feet. The argument goes both ways, You just don't seem to recognize that.vraiblonde said:
I can't - there's nowhere to go. It's non-smokers that have the choices, not smokers. I cannot go into a non-smoking establishment and fire one up. You, however, can choose to patronize non-smoking restaurants and bars.PsyOps said:
This is a control issue is what this is. It has nothing to do with smokers rights or whatever. This is Annapolis testing the cage walls to see how far they can reach out.
Cigarette smoke in "smoking establishments" as it stands is no more harmful than your car exhaust. The building codes as they stand make it so that in order to make a public building a smoking establishment it must meet ventilation codes, fire ratings, etc. With the proper ventilation and evacuation of the smoke, you shouldn't cigarette smoke to be any more dense than car exhaust fumes. What sorts of studies were done to establish that the existing establishments were causing problems? Did anyone do any sort of tests using meters to determine the level of toxic gases in the air? If they were found to be of a lethal dose why isn't the building codes enforced and updated to ensure that harm isn't done to other patrons in the establishment?
Bartenders that work in smoke enviroments should be paid some sort of hazard duty pay (an extra 2.50 an hour) if they can prove that their employer is harming them by making them work in smoke filled enviroments. I can guarantee if a place is clouded with smoke, their ventillation system isn't working properly and it should be fixed.
However, you all will slowly realize that by allowing the state to work to ban smoking, guns, raise gas taxes, ban slots and other forms of gambling, and everything else you will realize this is the game in Annapolis. But the state will lose even more revenue, only widening the budget deficit that we have now. People will drive to Virginia to get gas, go to W. Va to play slots, and go to restaurants in Delaware and Va. to smoke and eat/drink. Your going to see small businesses loose revenue and eventually close. By the time things "change back" to the way they were, its going to be too late. And in the end, Timmy doesn't get a new school book, Jimmy doesn't have a new highway to drive on, and Johnny's taxes went up across the board. But you can bet all those people in Virginia, Delaware, Pa, and W.Va. are going to enjoy all of their new Maryland customers.
Cigarette smoke in "smoking establishments" as it stands is no more harmful than your car exhaust. The building codes as they stand make it so that in order to make a public building a smoking establishment it must meet ventilation codes, fire ratings, etc. With the proper ventilation and evacuation of the smoke, you shouldn't cigarette smoke to be any more dense than car exhaust fumes. What sorts of studies were done to establish that the existing establishments were causing problems? Did anyone do any sort of tests using meters to determine the level of toxic gases in the air? If they were found to be of a lethal dose why isn't the building codes enforced and updated to ensure that harm isn't done to other patrons in the establishment?
Bartenders that work in smoke enviroments should be paid some sort of hazard duty pay (an extra 2.50 an hour) if they can prove that their employer is harming them by making them work in smoke filled enviroments. I can guarantee if a place is clouded with smoke, their ventillation system isn't working properly and it should be fixed.
However, you all will slowly realize that by allowing the state to work to ban smoking, guns, raise gas taxes, ban slots and other forms of gambling, and everything else you will realize this is the game in Annapolis. But the state will lose even more revenue, only widening the budget deficit that we have now. People will drive to Virginia to get gas, go to W. Va to play slots, and go to restaurants in Delaware and Va. to smoke and eat/drink. Your going to see small businesses loose revenue and eventually close. By the time things "change back" to the way they were, its going to be too late. And in the end, Timmy doesn't get a new school book, Jimmy doesn't have a new highway to drive on, and Johnny's taxes went up across the board. But you can bet all those people in Virginia, Delaware, Pa, and W.Va. are going to enjoy all of their new Maryland customers.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
That's not fair...
...and it doesn't tell the story.
Is smoking legal? Yes. It it rather restricted? Yes. Anyone in here older than 40? Anyone remember smoking on airplanes? In movie theatres? In department stores and, for crying out loud, in the grocery store? How about the little aluminium ashtrays at McDonald's?
Smokers can't light up in the workplace. They can't light up walking around the common area of a mall. They can't smoke just about anywhere except bars and home. They have been persecuted in a manner that is completely inconsistent with the Constitution and simple fairness. This is the same kind of incremental rot that passes for civil the last 30 years that affects us in so many other areas that slowly, one by one, day by day have coarsened our culture.
Smoking should be banned or not, end of story. It can't be banned because that means every single last thing we do that might offend or injure someone else, from bbqing in the back yard to driving a car to eating an unapproved food will be on the chopping block and in the courthouse.
We should not, as a society, be able to tell a bar or restaurant that they can't allow smoking. They should make that choice and let the market decide. Or, we should tell them no smoking and no bad food and no loud music and no profanity and no, well, no alcohol either.
We are quick to pull a weapon on anyone that offends us and lose all perspective of what we're are doing and why and what is appropriate and, worse yet, failing to see how easily that weapon can be turned on us for our choices.
PsyOps said:
...and it doesn't tell the story.
Is smoking legal? Yes. It it rather restricted? Yes. Anyone in here older than 40? Anyone remember smoking on airplanes? In movie theatres? In department stores and, for crying out loud, in the grocery store? How about the little aluminium ashtrays at McDonald's?
Smokers can't light up in the workplace. They can't light up walking around the common area of a mall. They can't smoke just about anywhere except bars and home. They have been persecuted in a manner that is completely inconsistent with the Constitution and simple fairness. This is the same kind of incremental rot that passes for civil the last 30 years that affects us in so many other areas that slowly, one by one, day by day have coarsened our culture.
Smoking should be banned or not, end of story. It can't be banned because that means every single last thing we do that might offend or injure someone else, from bbqing in the back yard to driving a car to eating an unapproved food will be on the chopping block and in the courthouse.
We should not, as a society, be able to tell a bar or restaurant that they can't allow smoking. They should make that choice and let the market decide. Or, we should tell them no smoking and no bad food and no loud music and no profanity and no, well, no alcohol either.
We are quick to pull a weapon on anyone that offends us and lose all perspective of what we're are doing and why and what is appropriate and, worse yet, failing to see how easily that weapon can be turned on us for our choices.
PsyOps
Pixelated
When I go into a restaurant (as a non-smoker) I affect no one; when you go in and light up, you affect everyone. You can choose to patronize non-smoking restaurants, just don’t smoke for the 1 hour that you are eating. Is this really all that hard to do or understand? I do feel bars are different though. Smoke up!vraiblonde said:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Hmmm...
...interesting perspective.
Maybe it's the smokers, in fits of self loathing, that have been affecting this?
PsyOps said:
...interesting perspective.
Maybe it's the smokers, in fits of self loathing, that have been affecting this?
Well, maybe not. Isn't there a law in MD that you can only bring one carton of VA-purchased cigarettes over the state line?protectmd said:
So what would stop the legislature from making a law that says MD residents can't go have dinner or buy gas in VA?
What's wrong with this statement?protectmd said: