[POLL] - Smoking Ban

[MrBond]

We just had the choice between two laws like this in Ohio.

The first was sponsored by the tobacco companies and would have banned smoking in all public places, except restaurants and bars with a separate non-smoking section. This was a constitutional amendment, and was actually weaker than the smoking ban Toledo currently has (which is a total joke). It didn't define how separate the smoking area had to be - my favorite bar is basically one big room, half of it is smoking and the other half is not. The whole bar is smoke-filled.

The second was a complete ban on smoking in public places. Certain exceptions existed for places like tobacco shops, etc.

If both passed, the first ban would have invalidated the second ban because it was a constitutional amendment.

Voters turned down the weaker ban and voted for the stronger ban. The stronger ban isn't currently being enforced because there's no final decision on fines/etc for it. That's expected to come sometime in April or May. Businesses are openly flaunting that they're going to ignore it and have started a legal battle to get it overturned.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: hdeck

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: hdeck

Originally posted by: BigJ
I hope all you people voting yes are willing to give up all that sweet tax revenue cigarettes generate and in turn pay higher state and federal taxes as a result.

i'll gladly pay a higher tax if that means i don't have to be bombarded by smoke when i go out.

on a related note, austin banned smoking in bars and 6th street has never been better

Thanks for taking the bait

i don't see how no smoking in public places = no one smokes anymore = no more tax revenue from it.

That has nothing to do with it. I'll let out the line a little longer:

1) Besides the purpose of pure revenue and profits, what are some of the reasons that people advocate higher tobacco taxes?
2) You're saying you find it OK to essentially pay off the government to restrict the freedoms of others.

 

[Gooberlx2]

I went to school in Eau Claire, WI. They voted to ban smoking (#2 option) a long time ago. I doubt that this is an "all-of-a-sudden" thing. Most likely many smaller towns hae been doing it and it's been getting a lot of support, so he's just taking the next step.

Personally, I'd vote option #1. That's how it is in Colorado and it's great. If you must smoke, then go outside. Before the ban it was at a point where I couldn't go to a bar or restaurant without coming home reeking of cigarettes and either feeling sick or having my allergies going crazy.

To extend I'd even vote to have it banned in large apartment complexes. Because it seeps into everyone else's apartment through the ventilation or open windows and makes my place smell like scheit....either that or designate a building specifically for smokers. Well....maybe not but I'm just jaded because of my neighbors.

edit: To clarify, I don't think it's wrong or evil (unlike some other more militant posters) I just can't stand it. I would never vote to ban smoking altogether, in fact I think more things ought to be legalized....I'm all for smoking specific establishments (Colorado allows any establishment that sells over a certain amount of tobacco).

 

[SparkyJJO]

I am not a smoker and am against smoking but I don't think it is the government's place to go telling people where they can and cannot smoke. That should be up to the business as to whether they want to allow smoking on their property or not.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: animalia
no and no. I accidentally voted yes to the second one so you can disregard one of the yes votes. let people smoke if they want and toughen up if you don't like it. My parent were raised in chain smoking households and neither of them smoke or have lung cancer or birth defects.

HELL YEAH BAN SMOKING. HELL YEAH MAKE KILLING BABIES LEGAL. THE ENVIRONMENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE CYCLE OF LIFE!!!!!!

um...the environment is essential to the cycle of life...
the things you guys come up with...

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: animalia
no and no. I accidentally voted yes to the second one so you can disregard one of the yes votes. let people smoke if they want and toughen up if you don't like it. My parent were raised in chain smoking households and neither of them smoke or have lung cancer or birth defects.

HELL YEAH BAN SMOKING. HELL YEAH MAKE KILLING BABIES LEGAL. THE ENVIRONMENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE CYCLE OF LIFE!!!!!!

um...the environment is essential to the cycle of life...
the things you guys come up with...

Blaming smoking and using this reason to get rid of it is like trying to put a band aid on a gaping shotgun wound.

 

[moshquerade]

total ban in any public place. it's working nicely in NY thank you very much.

 

[Gamingphreek]

For those of you who say it isn't within the governments rights. It most certainly is. If you remember a basic government class, when asked to integrate many shops chose not to. They felt it was their property and they could do what they want. Well, they get their produce and goods out of state and therefore would be in violation of one of the Commerce Trade Acts.

I say vote yes everywhere. If you want to smoke, go do it in your house- don't clog up my lungs with that crap (Sorry guys, I have to breathe- The argument that you aren't forcing me to breate in that smoke is ludicrous).

This really belongs in P&N- There seems to be a lot of liberals/ACLU members in here -_-

-Kevin

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
total ban in any public place. it's working nicely in NY thank you very much.

FL has a bastard form of the ban. It's working rather well.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
If it's a public vote and the majority says "we don't want it", then that's a stamp of approval enough for me.

But I don't think that it's right for it to be enacted without a public majority (even though I wouldn't complain if it was).

Hmmm that's a good point. In Colorado it was a vote. I don't know how the governor of WI is pushing it.

 

[atybimf]

Yes, ban it. I hate smoking.

 

[LeiZaK]

Yes to both, even though I am a smoker.

 

[ohtwell]

I would vote yes for either. I hate having to be exposed to smoke when I go places. If they want to make themselves, their clothes, and their home smell like an ashtray, that's their choice but I shouldn't have to just because I want to go out. Maybe there could be a bar or restaurant that's for just smokers, so they can be around other people sucking on cancer sticks.

Also, I think people should be banned from smoking when their children are in the car. My parents used to smoke in the car with my brothers and I and we were always sick.


: ) Amanda

 

[Atheus]

There's going to be a total ban in public places here in London soon. I'm going to ignore it and I bet nobody tries to stop me.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: ohtwell
I would vote yes for either. I hate having to be exposed to smoke when I go places. If they want to make themselves, their clothes, and their home smell like an ashtray, that's their choice but I shouldn't have to just because I want to go out. Maybe there could be a bar or restaurant that's for just smokers, so they can be around other people sucking on cancer sticks.

Also, I think people should be banned from smoking when their children are in the car. My parents used to smoke in the car with my brothers and I and we were always sick.


: ) Amanda

Enclosed spaces is a different story - all public places would include the street.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: ohtwell
I would vote yes for either. I hate having to be exposed to smoke when I go places. If they want to make themselves, their clothes, and their home smell like an ashtray, that's their choice but I shouldn't have to just because I want to go out. Maybe there could be a bar or restaurant that's for just smokers, so they can be around other people sucking on cancer sticks.

Also, I think people should be banned from smoking when their children are in the car. My parents used to smoke in the car with my brothers and I and we were always sick.


: ) Amanda

Enclosed spaces is a different story - all public places would include the street.

Street, Park, Designated Smoking Places, walking on the sidewalk to your car in the morning.

 

[meltdown75]

Already been done here (Ontario, Canada).

 

[Turin39789]

No and No.

Reformed Smoker here.

 

[ViviTheMage]

ban it all!

 

[Pacemaker]

No and No.

I have never smoked in my life, but when I moved from IL (no bans) to FL (second ban option) I started to hear that they also wanted to make it illegal to smoke in your car.... at all... even if you are the only occupant because "Smokers throw cigarettes out their windows". Uh last time I checked that's already a crime, why do we need to punish the smokers who don't litter? They also wanted to ban smoking outside within 50 feet of a building. There is no evidence to support that OUTSIDE second hand smoke does anything. All second hand smoke studies are conducted in closed environments.

I see it as a slow ban of cigarettes in general. They will keep removing places until you can't smoke anywhere.

I mean what?s next no smoking in your house because people burn down their houses smoking? I can come up with stupid reasons to ban anything, but only with smoking does it seem to actually be considered.


The one thing I will agree with is that smoking sections and non-smoking sections need to have better divisions. It's not good for either party when there is literally only a 1 foot tall pane of glass separating smoking from non-smoking on what could be considered the same table (actually witnessed in an IL red lobster, my friend who was a smoker felt really bad about it, but it wasn't his fault the store did that).

 

[3NF]

It should be the choice of the establishment (business). I don't smoke and I think all smokers are filthy pigs, especially those that throw their butts out the windows of their cars, into the grass, etc. When I see this I just want to pick the damn thing up and ram it down their throats.

 

[monk3y]

By establishment yes... But not a total ban.

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: 3NF
It should be the choice of the establishment (business). I don't smoke and I think all smokers are filthy pigs, especially those that throw their butts out the windows of their cars, into the grass, etc. When I see this I just want to pick the damn thing up and ram it down their throats.

Hang out with Pagan smokers, they field strip their cigarettes and put the buts in a metal case when trash cans are not available (not kidding).

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Amused
Businesses are NOT public places. They are private property in which the public is invited at the will of the owner.

Wrong. According to the law, businesses are not simply 'private property', they are 'private property with public access' and are treated differently than private property. Basically, you can use your private property any way you like, but if you decide the allow the public in for commercial purposes, then you have to abide by the rules the public sets for places with public access.

You don't have to agree with it, but that's how the laws are written currently. If you don't like that, you'll have to get the laws changed.

The majority have no right to vote away the rights of the minority (individual).

Not true. The rights of the individual are trumped by the rights of the society as a whole in certain instances. The right to yell "fire" in a theatre being the classic example. The freedom of speech in that instance is trumped by society. I agree that such instances have to be carefully weighed and normally individual rights should be upheld, but where there are clear cases of public interest exceptions can be made.

I believe smoking is one of those. There is a clear public interest in restricting it in public places and places with public access. What you do in your home is nobody else's business, but what you do in places where other people are is their business. If the public decides they want to restrict smoking in public, then I don't see a problem with it. If they try to enact a ban including private property, then I have an issue with it.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

I wouldn't vote yes for a complete ban, that's a bit ignorant IMO. However, I would encourage businesses to choose to not allow smoking, it's their choice and their property, why should the government control their property in regards to smoking?

I honestly haven't had much of an issue with lots of people smoking and don't view it as big of an issue as people here in the US play smoking out to be. Sure, it has consequences and potential issues, but I don't really think it's as bad as it's viewed by a lot of people.

Enforcing this also means that the cops will be busy writing stupid little tickets for smoking instead of doing other things.