Smoking Ban

[ESPNInsider]

Again..... by "entire city" do you mean GF & EGF OR Bars should be smoke free along with all public places?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh sorry. I mean bars. But EGF will take some of the smoking public. It would be nice for EGF to go smoke-free too. Then I don't think that anyone would lose business.

[Diggler]

You smoking in a room of people puts everyone's health at risk. Me not smoking in a room of people puts no one at risk. See the difference.

Is it too much to ask smokers to go outside?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But just because you want to be able to go to a restaurant and not have people smoking, shouldn't mean that the owner of the restaurant be forced by law to not allow smoking. A majority of people don't want smoking in restaurants. If this same majority of people would act on this belief and refuse to go to restaurants that allow it, the restaurants will be forced to not allow smoking or go out of business. But people are lazy and want laws for everything they don't like without themselves having to do anything.

[airmail]

If this same majority of people would act on this belief and refuse to go to restaurants that allow it, the restaurants will be forced to not allow smoking or go out of business. But people are lazy and want laws for everything they don't like without themselves having to do anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactimundo.

[dakotadan]

You do have options.

[ESPNInsider]

[Brent_Bobyck]

But just because you want to be able to go to a restaurant and not have people smoking, shouldn't mean that the owner of the restaurant be forced by law to not allow smoking. A majority of people don't want smoking in restaurants. If this same majority of people would act on this belief and refuse to go to restaurants that allow it, the restaurants will be forced to not allow smoking or go out of business. But people are lazy and want laws for everything they don't like without themselves having to do anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't understand how trying to protect my health is being lazy. Isn't it just as lazy when smokers don't want to do something as simple as go outside to smoke?

[Diggler]

I don't understand how trying to protect my health is being lazy. Isn't it just as lazy when smokers don't want to do something as simple as go outside to smoke?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When it was allowed, no one was making you go to those restaurants that allowed smoking. You chose to go to restaurants. You obviously liked the food/atmosphere/whatever more then you disliked the smoke. If you truely want smoking to be eliminated from restaurants, you don't need a law for it. All you need is to do is not frequent those restaurants along with every other person who doesn't want smoking in those restaurants. Those restaurants will quickly adapt to their loss in business.

[Cratter]

When it was allowed, no one was making you go to those restaurants that allowed smoking. You chose to go to restaurants. You obviously liked the food/atmosphere/whatever more then you disliked the smoke. If you truely want smoking to be eliminated from restaurants, you don't need a law for it. All you need is to do is not frequent those restaurants along with every other person who doesn't want smoking in those restaurants. Those restaurants will quickly adapt to their loss in business.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can see both sides of this issue. Diggler is exactly right. It shouldn't be law. If I own a restaurant and I smoke and I want my patrons to smoke and they want to smoke the law should allow that. But with that said...

Times are a changing. People now know how "bad" first and second hand smoke is. Cars don't need to come with ash trays & cigarette lighters anymore (notice how the "cigarette lighter" in your car is no longer a lighter, but a plug in without a cigarette logo). No longer is it okay and casual to smoke like it was in the '60s, when everyone did it and the health effects weren't widely known. It is simply polite and easy to go outside when you want and need a cigarette. It might be what it takes to get a few people to quit and that is definately a good thing. In another fifty years, even fewer percentage of people will smoke and no one will even notice when the entire country is smoke free cause they won't care.

[ND Pride]

I can see both sides of this issue. Diggler is exactly right. It shouldn't be law. If I own a restaurant and I smoke and I want my patrons to smoke and they want to smoke the law should allow that. But with that said...

Times are a changing. People now know how "bad" first and second hand smoke is. Cars don't need to come with ash trays & cigarette lighters anymore (notice how the "cigarette lighter" in your car is no longer a lighter, but a plug in without a cigarette logo). No longer is it okay and casual to smoke like it was in the '60s, when everyone did it and the health effects weren't widely known. It is simply polite and easy to go outside when you want and need a cigarette. It might be what it takes to get a few people to quit and that is definately a good thing. In another fifty years, even fewer percentage of people will smoke and no one will even notice when the entire country is smoke free cause they won't care.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cratter makes some excellent points. Although I disagree with the position that there should not be a law. Much of the effort to accomplish social change - eliminating the health risk behavior of smoking - needs to be accomplished through the exercise of power. The passage of a law creates the power to control smoking in the environments to which it covers. It is an important force because smoking is an addiction that exercises significant power over the people who engage in it. Many want to quit but have difficulty because of the power of the addiction. The force of law can add another element that helps to, hopefully, eliminate a behavior that benefits one of the most unethical and exploitative industries in human history.

[dakotadan]

If you guys are so concerned about my health and think that banning smoking in every single bar and restaurant may force me to quite then why don't we just ban tobaco completely. And if you are so concerned about my health, we better ban all alcohol sales and just close all bars. Wouldn't want me to hurt my liver.

As I said before I am not trying to convinve people that smoking is healthy. My point is I don't see why we have to try and force EVERY bar and restaurant to go smoke free. What is wrong with some bar/restaurants being smoke free and others allowing smoking for those that want that kind of environment.

[ESPNInsider]

I'm guessing you guys who are against the law are also against the seat belt law? Why do it? Because it saves lives. Some people are not smart enough to realize what will save their life and what will kill them. Sometimes the government needs to give them some help.

The only problem with having the law only in restaurants and not in bars is that businesses are hurt then. If you go across the board then no business is hurt.

[ND Pride]

If you guys are so concerned about my health and think that banning smoking in every single bar and restaurant may force me to quite then why don't we just ban tobaco completely. And if you are so concerned about my health, we better ban all alcohol sales and just close all bars. Wouldn't want me to hurt my liver.

As I said before I am not trying to convinve people that smoking is healthy. My point is I don't see why we have to try and force EVERY bar and restaurant to go smoke free. What is wrong with some bar/restaurants being smoke free and others allowing smoking for those that want that kind of environment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the best of all possible worlds the cigarette industry would not exist - in fact, it should not exist. As I pointed out earlier, it is one of the most unethical, manipulative and exploitative industries that exists. If we did not have the "rights" issue we could ban it with the only problem being that the areas that depend economically on tobacco crop revenue would have to have some form of economic development to replace it.

One of the problems with the tobacco debate is the fact that the focus on tobacco gets blurred when other issues (alcohol, seat belts, helmets on motorcycle drivers/passengers, etc) is brought into the discussion. Each of these has their own set of facts. Smoking has no benefit to humans. It is addictive. Ideally it should not exist. Hopefully, those who smoke will have the willpower to change their behavior with or without the various programs available to them to break the addiction.

[IowaBison]

I don't understand how trying to protect my health is being lazy. Isn't it just as lazy when smokers don't want to do something as simple as go outside to smoke?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If it was about employees' health, which is about the only decent argument, why don't they just enforce existing rules regarding workplace conditions?

My brother works in manufacturing and I'm pretty sure his workplace has more crap in the air than at a new bar with a $100,000 filtration system.

[dakotadan]

Some people are not smart enough to realize what will save their life and what will kill them.  Sometimes the government needs to give them some help.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am glad you are SMART enough to live a healthy life. Apparently I am not.

Smoking has no benefit to humans.  It is addictive.  Ideally it should not exist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are many things in life that have no benefit to humans. Should we get rid of them all. Drinking has no benefits to humans, let's just close down all bars. Movies have no benefits to humans, let's close down all theaters.

Once again, what is wrong with me sitting in a bar enjoying a cigarette with my drink while you sit next door in the smoke-free bar? Why must my rights be taken away?

[ND Pride]

[ND Pride]

[redwing77]

[Diggler]

Unfortunately, there really is no real solution outside of lame ideas that insult more than solve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In that case, you must have lots!

[ND Pride]

[ESPNInsider]

I don't think that statement is either fair or accurate. To say smoking has no benefit to humans, let's be consistent and apply the same statement to Mountain Dew, coffee, and alcohol. I guess Mountain Dew, coffee, and alcohol should not exist either. But... people enjoy those products, right? Well, whether you like it or not, some people enjoy smoking too. That's why it should continue to exist.

To say it is addictive is just silly. I used to smoke from the time I was in high school till I was in my mid '20s. Then one day about 10 years ago I decided it was costing me too much money so I abruptly quit. Ever since that day I have considered it a guilty pleasure that I indulge in only on the rare occassions that I go out drinking with friends.

Smoking isn't any more addictive than drinking coffee, watching TV, or surfing the internet. Anything can be considered addictive if you enjoy doing it. I smoke when I go out drinking, and that's it. I don't smoke in my house, in my car, at work, or any other place at any other time. If it was as addictive as people suggest, I would not be able to months at a time without smoking now would I?

I don't get cravings, and honestly I have to laugh at all the anti-smoking people who have never smoked a cigarette in their lives and yet think they're experts on how addictive it is. I know firsthand how easy it was to quit. On the rare occassions when I do indulge it is because I want to, not because I feel like I have to.

If you don't like smoky bars, go to one of the non-smoking bars that are available. You have a choice, we should have a choice as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dave, are you serious about some of these comments? You're comparing Mountain Dew to cigs? TV to cigs? "To say it is addictive is just silly"

The only benefit smoking has to humans is that either it fills their addiction, or it fills their pockets with money.

The first step in overcoming an addiction is admitting you have one.

[dakotadan]

I am glad you guys don't smoke. But you have yet to explain why when you already have to the option to go to bars and restaurants that are smoke free, I along with millions of others should not have the same option to go to a bar that does allow smoking. Do you have the option to go to bars and restaurants that are smoke free... YES. So what is wrong with a few bars and restaurants allowing me to smoke? That is my biggest question. When you already have the option to go to bars and restaurants that are smoke free, why do you feel that it is such a huge issue to take the option of me going to a bar that allows smoking away?

Again, when you already have the option to go to bars/restaurants that are smoke free... why do you feel it is your duty to take my option of going to a bar/restaurant that does allow smoking away????

[CoteauRinkRat]

To say it is addictive is just silly. I used to smoke from the time I was in high school till I was in my mid '20s. Then one day about 10 years ago I decided it was costing me too much money so I abruptly quit. Ever since that day I have considered it a guilty pleasure that I indulge in only on the rare occassions that I go out drinking with friends.

Do you work for big Tobacco?

Nicotine isn't addictive?

[ND Pride]

Do you work for big Tobacco?

Nicotine isn't addictive?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just to follow-up on CoteauRinkRat's comment, here is a quote from the Phillip Morris website that I cited earlier:

http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/health_i...ource=home_fca1

Addiction

Philip Morris USA agrees with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking is addictive. It can be very difficult to quit smoking, but this should not deter smokers who want to quit from trying to do so.

[ND Pride]

I am glad you guys don't smoke. But you have yet to explain why when you already have to the option to go to bars and restaurants that are smoke free, I along with millions of others should not have the same option to go to a bar that does allow smoking. Do you have the option to go to bars and restaurants that

[ND Pride]

I am glad you guys don't smoke. But you have yet to explain why when you already have to the option to go to bars and restaurants that are smoke free, I along with millions of others should not have the same option to go to a bar that does allow smoking. Do you have the option to go to bars and restaurants that  are smoke free... YES.  So what is wrong with a few bars and restaurants allowing me to smoke? That is my  biggest question. When you already have the option to go to bars and restaurants that are smoke free, why do you feel that it is such a huge issue to take the option of me going to a bar that allows smoking away?

Again, when you already have the option to go to bars/restaurants that are smoke free... why do you feel it is your duty to take my option of going to a bar/restaurant that does allow smoking away????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think what we are seeing here is long term social change that is putting smokers on the defensive. When scientific evidence accumulated the clearly indicated the problems with smoking the tide changed and slowly but surely smokers are being "run out of town" so to speak. I think it is the clear scientific consensus on the health impact tied with the legal clout available when something is a public health issue. Now the cigarette industry also proclaims that their product is addictive and harmful.

First smokers were tossed from the workplace (most workplaces) and now we have the bar and restaurant issue. We also have schools that ban it on their grounds - although I was at a sporting event at a high school the other day and two adult smokers refused to leave the area near the field as they smoked. Basically, the behavior is under attack even in some situations when there is no immediate health impact on people - smoking outdoors at an athletic field. Does a school district have the right to do that - apparently yes they do. In some ways there are no really simple or single answer to your question. Smoking is under attack and will continue to be attacked and smokers will be on the defensive.