DescentBB

Hooray! I've only been living here for a couple months, but every time I go to a bowling alley, bar or club I come back smelling like smoke. This was a stark contrast to NY which already had an indoor smoking ban.

http://www.healthyindoorairwa.org/

Going out should be much better after today.

WOOT!

I live in Oregon and we've had this law (or something very simular) for a number of years. I Like it.

Topher wrote:Hooray! I've only been living here for a couple months

"here" meaning Seattle?

You have my phone number. (Look in the mod forum.)

Thereâ??s been a smoking ban in Minneapolis for some time now. I smoke and I could care less. In a weird way it adds another way to meet people you gather outside and small talk ensues. Another avenue when you are out being an alcoholic.

The only part where I disagree with the smoking ban is at bars. I personally think that at bars, it should be up to the owner's discretion to permit or prohibit smoking. Not at facilities that have bars (like bowling alleys), but only at places that strictly operate at bars.

Glad to hear it, I can't wait until Pennsylvania gets off it's arse and bans those disgusting things here.

I would say bars, if there are no pool tables, no serving tables, or anythign else other than a bar and 4 walls, then go ahead. Otherwise, put the smokers outside in the cold. Serves them right.

I smoke but like Cope, I like going outside. But, it should be up to the individual establishments, aren't you all tired of the govt regulating everything in your life and mine?

i smoke but i go to the bar to play pool so i don't care. i'd continue to go if they banned booze. i'll stop when they ban pool.

I think they should continue to allow smoking at bars, but have the proprietor provide proper ventilation.

I think it should be up to the business owner...*shrug*

Gooberman wrote:I think it should be up to the business owner...*shrug*

Exactly.

Thinking otherwise is why the United States is in such a mess. What ever happened to respecting the rights of others? The politicians feed off of this selfishness to take away our freedoms. There are more non-smokers then smokers so the non-smokers can bully the smokers. This is like 4 wolves and 2 sheep voting for what's for dinner. The question "Is it morally right to force someone how to run their business" is not even considered. Fascism anyone?

Unless this trend is stopped it is just a matter of time before another group tramples on your rights. Imagine the prohibition of hunting, fishing or any other activity that enough people don't like. I thought we stood for â??liberty and justice for allâ?

Well, smoking in crowded spaces is annoying, even for me as a smoker. I would not want someone smoking next to me while I am eating, watching a movie, or standing on line at a bank. Likewise, I would not want my (hypothetical) kids to have to deal with smoke when they go to the bowling alley, the mall, or to other places.

I met someone with cystic fibrosis at college this year. He's a friend of mine, and I can't smoke near him or he goes into vicious coughing fits. In public-use buildings such as banks, airports, bowling alleys, and restaurants, what if I were to cause someone to have a fatal asthma attack? Would I be responsible, or would it be that person's responsibility to not visit such establishments? After all, my smoking played an active role in that person's demise.

Bars already have a health-risking purpose, so I don't consider banning smoking in them necessary -- though not evil either.

The point I was trying to make is people shouldn't use the force of government to get what they want. There are always going to be people with heath problems, some people are allergic to wood. What is the answer to all their problems, I don't know. Surely government isn't.

Can you imagine the police shooting someone because they refused to forbid smoking in their place. All the owner would have to do is not pay the fines long enough then resist arrest and out come the guns.

Thats doesn't sound like what a free country is supposed to be.

California got this back in 2000 or so... I think it was one of the first states to do it.

i think blanket anti-smoking bans are discriminatory against schizophrenics

punisher wrote:I think they should continue to allow smoking at bars, but have the proprietor provide proper ventilation.

i've got a neat idea for this, that i might be able to market

There isn't a way to provide proper ventilation. All the smoke grabbers in the world don't filter out the putrid stench let alone the chemicals.

Thwart, smokers are the ones who don't respect the rights of others. I don't want to breathe noxious fumes when I go out, and I should never have to. Smokers are in the wrong, period. Blowing posionous smoke in my face is undefendable. Leaning towards your logic, I should be able to go to a bar and spray Raid at whim, 'cause this is America, right? Raid is probably better for you, anyway

Stop driving your car. Its exhaust bothers me. You're in the wrong.

See how ludicrous the argument is? "Stop doing X cause I don't like it" is a baseless argument that encroaches upon my rights. There's a point at which protecting Group A's rights encroaches upon those of Group B.

Testiculese wrote:There isn't a way to provide proper ventilation. All the smoke grabbers in the world don't filter out the putrid stench let alone the chemicals.

Hey, I got news for ya. The smoke does a good job of masking the natural smell of many bars, which can often resemble puke, urine, body odor, and smelly shoes. pick yer poison. i say lessez fairre; let the business owner decide.

Besides, I love the smell of a good cigarette. Smells like a mountain stream flowing through the trees, and of course, victory.

'Cept when it gets in your eyes. Ouch.

And not everyone smokes Nat Shermans or Camel Exotics. Camel Lights and Marlboro Lights have to be the worst-smelling cigarettes ever.

Dunhills me like. other than that...doens't matter.

Well, I'm a smoker, both pot and ciggys, but I think there comes a time when you just have to say, "I think I'll respect the other person who does'nt smoke just because it's a good thing to do, for us both."

DCrazy wrote:Stop driving your car. Its exhaust bothers me. You're in the wrong.

See how ludicrous the argument is?

Nope. The argument isn't ludicrous, it's just your flawed example that's ludicrous.

It's not about "bothers" or "not bothers"; it's about "poses a serious health risk that outweighs any possible benefits" or "not"... people driving cars outdoors generally* don't pose a significant health risk to others, but cars have great benefit. People smoking indoors, on the other hand, pose a significant health risk to others, while what they're smoking generally** has little if any benefit. I'm not saying the government is right to ban it, just that your counter-argument isn't any good.

I'm all for letting business owners decide, though. Government buildings should be smoke-free because at least some taxpayers have significant problems with smoke, and of course hospitals should be smoke-free, but other companies (from grocery stores to bars) should decide based on their customer base. I have a feeling a lot would ban smoking, but some would allow it. And, of course, people should be considerate of others in both ways -- if you're a smoker, do your best not to smoke around those who don't want to breathe your exhaust, and if you're a non-smoker who's going to complain about smokers, don't hang out in places where smoking is common.

* sometimes people driving DO pose a significant risk to others -- say, when they're drunk, driving too fast, and so on. Not surprisingly, we have laws against that.
** cases where smoking is of significant psychological benefit, like roid's example of schizos, aren't widespread enough to make for a good counterargument. Limited exceptions could be made, for example...

Lothar wrote:** cases where smoking is of significant psychological benefit, like roid's example of schizos, aren't widespread enough to make for a good counterargument. Limited exceptions could be made, for example...[/size]

schizophrenia: a whole 1% of the population babeh.

Lothar: my point was that people who advocate banning smoking entirely are doing so for quite the wrong reason. Cars are a lot more common than smokers, and produce a lot more air pollution, and are therefore far more likely to trigger adverse and potentially fatal effects in people who have asthma. The solution? People with asthma stay away from smog-ridden cities like Los Angeles.

The same thing with smoking. It's my choice to smoke, just like it's my choice to drive my car. There are certain things you can't do with a car, such as drive the wrong way down one-way streets, or -- more relevantly -- drive a car which does not pass emission standards. Likewise, there are certain places where one cannot smoke: government buildings, public-use buildings, restaurants (in most states, if smoking in restaurants is not outright banned, there must be a separate, fully enclosed, well-ventilated smoking room). But banning smoking outside buildings or in bars is an infringement on my rights (outside) or the rights of the bar owner (in bars). I'm not as peeved about the reality of the latter as I am at the desire of some people to implement the former.

DCrazy wrote:Cars are a lot more common than smokers, and produce a lot more air pollution...

...but aren't usually driven indoors, and are therefore less likely to cause significant health risks. I grew up with 2 family members with severe asthma, and I've never seen either have trouble because of too much car exhaust... but I've seen both have serious breathing difficulties (sometimes leading to unconsciousness) due to cigarette smoke, often in places like stores or standing in line somewhere.

There are certain things you can't do with a car, such as drive the wrong way down one-way streets, or -- more relevantly -- drive a car which does not pass emission standards. Likewise, there are certain places where one cannot smoke...

Right, and there's a legitimate debate to be had over which places should be included in that list. It seemed you were dismissing that discussion outright; perhaps I misunderstood.

Here's something I dread to think of... could someone with asthma use the ADA to force a federal ban on smoking in places of business as a "reasonable accomodation"?

I hope it doesn't come to that. I'd much rather see most businesses ban smoking indoors (and near doorways, depending on airflow) as courtesy to their customers, and other companies allow smoking as a courtesy to their customers. If you don't want to breathe smoke, don't go to places that allow it... if there are enough people like you looking for a bar, bowling alley, or whatever that doesn't allow smoking, someone will cash in on the profits to be made.

Personally, I think it should be left up to the owner of the establishment whether or not smoking is allowed. Outside, its fair game. Personally, I don't smoke and can't stand the stench of second hand smoke. However, I do expect to deal with a fair ammount of it going into casinos and the like. If I don't want to deal with it, then I'll go where its either not allowed, or where theres a non-smoking section.

The only argument I was dismissing was the one that claims smoking should be universally banned because you don't want to deal with it. Most people with a conscience understand it's rude to smoke in a crowd of people, in someone's face, or persistently despite a request to move. But to ban smoking outside is ludicrous; it's my air too damnit!

If a security guard asks me to move away from a doorway, I will. I refuse to stand for someone walking up to me and accosting me for standing against a building and smoking, when first of all I was there before them and secondly I have as much right to the air as they do.

Cars don't have to be inside to be bad. I work in the Loop in downtown Chicago couple days a week...it's where all the trains, cars, everything seems to find. "They", whoever they are, say that the air in the loop is like smoking two packs a day. I only wish the cars would pump some breathable nicotine into the air so I could at least get my fix.

three cents.

DCrazy wrote:I refuse to stand for someone walking up to me and accosting me for standing against a building and smoking, when first of all I was there before them and secondly I have as much right to the air as they do.

Exactly, a right to air. The ban is for public places, business owners who have private bars and private smoke lounges, that's fine. But anyone can walk into a bar or bowling alley and that person has a right to air, just like they have a right to handicap accessibility, disease free food and clean water.

Business owners could ban smoking in doors, their's nothing that says they can't (as far as I know), but obviously it doesn't happen that often, I'm sure it's a profit margin, more people who go to bars and bowling alleys smoke than don't and making them more comfortable means more business.

The government is the exact tool you use when something is not the way you want it. You vote on a change and if the people want it, it goes into law and the government is charged with enforcing it.

Why not keep aspestos as insulation or lead based paint?

Because they're freakin' unsafe! Any business owner that would say "You don't like aspestos, go somewhere else" would have a lawsuit slapped on him, but someone who says "You don't like smoke, go somewhere else", well now that's ok.

Give me a break.

DCrazy wrote:The only argument I was dismissing was the one that claims smoking should be universally banned because you don't want to deal with it. Most people with a conscience understand it's rude to smoke in a crowd of people, in someone's face, or persistently despite a request to move. But to ban smoking outside is ludicrous; it's my air too damnit!

No offense to you personally, but I can't even stand walking outside behind someone who's smoking. It may be in the open air, but it still makes me gag. To me, taking away my ability to walk to class without smelling that crap counts as interfering with my air, and the air of all those around me. You mentioned cars as being harmful to air, and there's no argument that they're not, but they're also an essential tool for moving people from one place to another. You can't stand there and tell me that smoking is necessary for anyone; it's a personal luxury. What's more, it's a personal luxury that royally screws up not only your own lungs, but also the lungs of anyone who's exposed to it in any significant amounts. If that's not enough of an argument for making smokers stay away from other people while they're partaking in their habit, I don't know what is.

Conscientious smokers will get out of the way. For example, I'll duck behind the building go over to the corner.

You'll find that smokers who don't care in the least about other people are jerks in general.

I'm sure that's probably true. Being a college campus, there are a good number of smokers around. I swear that at least a few of them wait to exhale until the exact moment when I'm walking by them. I really don't have any desire to ban all smoking outside of a person's private property; so long as it's not affecting me at all, smokers can smoke whenever they want. It's when it starts affecting me and those around me that I have a problem with it.

I don't mind the law except for one thing like was stated above it should be the owners choice. I saw on the news a place in Seattle had done it a few years ago. The owner took a poll and went smoke free on his own. It should be the same in reverse and there could be "smoking" bars.

As a smoker I don't even smoke in my own house. If in public I try and get as far away from people as I can. Its all of our air yes but those of us who choose to fog it up a bit can move away.

Someone mentioned earlier about emission standards. It is also against the law to drive those vehicles that are substandard. I don't think this law is enforced very much. The point is, there are laws against polluting the air with cars as well....to a point.

Palzon wrote:

Testiculese wrote:There isn't a way to provide proper ventilation. All the smoke grabbers in the world don't filter out the putrid stench let alone the chemicals.

Hey, I got news for ya. The smoke does a good job of masking the natural smell of many bars, which can often resemble puke, urine, body odor, and smelly shoes. pick yer poison. i say lessez fairre; let the business owner decide.

California has been smoke free since I was in high school, and I can't really say I have ever really smelled these things you say are so common (except maybe if I was in the bathroom).