Fighting the Anti-smoking movement!
- Thread starter icehog3
- Start date
For me it’s a tough place these days. I actually believe that most of what the antismoking movement does is good. Its good to have nonsmoking restaurants and buildings, I just think its problematic when we go to far. You can’t smoke outside? You can’t smoke in yr own house or car? Municipalities that have done that have gone too far in my opinion.
I’d just like to see a better line drawn. Like I think it would be great to have bars and restaurants pay extra for a license to allow smoking like they do for a liquor license. I mean tobacco isn’t illegal and I think we have to remain diligent to make sure it doesn’t become illegal.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o>
I’d just like to see a better line drawn. Like I think it would be great to have bars and restaurants pay extra for a license to allow smoking like they do for a liquor license. I mean tobacco isn’t illegal and I think we have to remain diligent to make sure it doesn’t become illegal.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o>68TriShield
no..not THAT Dave!
Fricken rookies!:r
SteveDMatt
We stink....2-3...WTF
For me it’s a tough place these days. I actually believe that most of what the antismoking movement does is good. Its good to have nonsmoking restaurants and buildings, I just think its problematic when we go to far. You can’t smoke outside? You can’t smoke in yr own house or car? Municipalities that have done that have gone too far in my opinion.
I’d just like to see a better line drawn. Like I think it would be great to have bars and restaurants pay extra for a license to allow smoking like they do for a liquor license. I mean tobacco isn’t illegal and I think we have to remain diligent to make sure it doesn’t become illegal.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
I kind of agree (Sorry Dave), but, why have to pay extra for a license. Just give to bar/restaurant owner the option to have smoking or not. I don't think seperate areas work as there is always a crossover. Personally, I like restaurants that are non-smoking, but I hate bars that are.
As long as there is a sign displayed in front of the establishment saying "This is a smoking establishment" or not, I don't see a problem with it. Let the public decide what they prefer. I honestly believe that most bars would go the non-smoking route, but at least give them an option.
RaiderinKS
Lowland Gorilla
I completely agree. one or the other is all I ask for from a business.
Well the argument is that second hand smoke causes health issues and frequently municpalities bear costs related to these health issues. I don't think you can fault the logic really. So the license fee is to offset those costs to the muncipality. I think they could easily recoup the fee by slightly higer prices. I know when I travel I seek out cigar friendly establishments and reward them for giving me a suitable environment to enjoy my hobby.
SteveDMatt
We stink....2-3...WTF
I don't understand how local municipalities bear any costs. If anything, a hospital that may have some state or federal funding may have some costs due to uninsured patients. I don't think hospitals receive any local funding, in fact, they pay property taxes.
Either way, I think we agree that it should be the establishments option to have smoking or not, and also the patrons option to visit those establishments.
I hate cigarettes and honestly I wouldn't care too much if they were illegal however I will always go against them becoming illegal because I believe in personal freedoms. I do hope that there is a distinction made between cigarettes and cigars if cigarettes are made illegal although this would be tough to do on any level.
Watch out with the whole "it affects other people" argument also:sb as this can be applied to absolutely anything. The fact is we all live in a society with other people and there is almost nothing a person can do without some sort of effect on others so the argument that you are affecting others is a bit moot. Lets make it illegal for your kids not to do their homework. Why? Because if they don't do their homework they are affecting all of society by robbing us of their potential for advancement. :al
Watch out with the whole "it affects other people" argument also:sb as this can be applied to absolutely anything. The fact is we all live in a society with other people and there is almost nothing a person can do without some sort of effect on others so the argument that you are affecting others is a bit moot. Lets make it illegal for your kids not to do their homework. Why? Because if they don't do their homework they are affecting all of society by robbing us of their potential for advancement. :al
cigar no baka
SilverBack
They had to fudge the numbers to come to that conclusion, according to epedimiologists. They finally fudged them enough to come to the conclusion that 6000 people per year die due to exposure from second hand smoke. But when asked how they came to that figure, the answer is always something like "an educated guess".