Smoking in public places.

[Nuc]

One of the other threads has veered off into an argument about the merits/demerits of smoking. I thought I'd start a new poll to find out what people think.

 

[Mr. P]

I'm in for..Let the establishment decide.

 

[Nuc]

I'm in for..Let the establishment decide.

Me too. That way people can patronize the kind of place they like. They can go to the no smoking/tofu restaurant, or they can go to the steakhouse/cigar bar.

However once an establishment gets beyond a certain human density-say a dance club or nightclub with people jammed together, one would hope the establisment would have the sense to not allow smoking.

 

[Shattered]

Let the establishment decide.. I can decide whether or not to give them my money.

 

[CSM]

Permit everywhere...heck, if I have to put up with them and their nasty habits, they can put up with mine ....

 

[Johnney]

Permit everywhere...heck, if I have to put up with them and their nasty habits, they can put up with mine ....

DITTO!

 

[speederdoc]

I think each place of business should be allowed to decide their own policy. I think that smoking should be allowed anywhere outdoors on public property.

I no longer smoke, but I dislike oppressive government intervention more than I dislike cigarette smoke..

 

[dmp]

Indeed - let the market decide. If business which allow smoking go under, there's your answer.

 

[Mr. P]

Coming to a town close to you...It's all politics now folks..

Georgia Smoking Ban Signed by Governor

Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue signed a new law that will ban smoking in the state in most public places.

The only places smokers will now be permitted to light up in public will be bars and restaurants that do not admit minors, workplace smoking areas with a separate air handling system and hotel and motel rooms set aside for smokers. Those violating the new law face fines of between $100 and $500.

Georgia becomes the second tobacco growing state to sign a strict law limiting the use of tobacco in public places after Florida.

Perdue had expressed reservations about the bill but ended up signing it just one day before the deadline for him to make a decision.

Smokers in Georgia now have one more reason to quit their habit. They may have trouble finding a legal place to light up.

 

[speederdoc]

^That sucks.

On a related note, smoking-allowed hotel rooms are uniformly nasty. Back when I smoked, I would always just get a nonsmoking room and smoke anyway.

 

[Shattered]

^That sucks.

On a related note, smoking-allowed hotel rooms are uniformly nasty. Back when I smoked, I would always just get a nonsmoking room and smoke anyway.

Now that's just mean... I smoke, but stay in non-smoking rooms, and go outside...

 

[The ClayTaurus]

^That sucks.

On a related note, smoking-allowed hotel rooms are uniformly nasty. Back when I smoked, I would always just get a nonsmoking room and smoke anyway.

Wow. And from a fellow RX-8'r. Sad

 

[Nuc]

^That sucks.

On a related note, smoking-allowed hotel rooms are uniformly nasty. Back when I smoked, I would always just get a nonsmoking room and smoke anyway.

I get a non-smoking room and smoke in the bar if that's allowed.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Permit everywhere...heck, if I have to put up with them and their nasty habits, they can put up with mine ....

The problem is, your nasty habit hurts other people. I would be perfectly ok with letting establishments decide, but the problem is that those who are unwilling or, for health reasons, unable to sit in a smoky restaurant get penalized by your right to light up.

You can still eat your steak (or tofu) at the restaurant without smoking. Someone with Asthma can not. There is a difference between a nasty habit that is just annoying to someone else, and one which is debilitating.


On a side note, do you think non-smoking citizens (or even other healthy smokers) should have to shoulder the costs of a smoker with lung cancer or whatever other sicknesses they develop? That's not meant as an affront, but rather a question out of my own curiousity.

 

[speederdoc]

Now that's just mean... I smoke, but stay in non-smoking rooms, and go outside...

Not any meaner than people ejaculating all over the bedspread and walls. Now that is gross. Next time you go to a hotel, bring a blacklight with you. :wank:

 

[Shattered]

The problem is, your nasty habit hurts other people. I would be perfectly ok with letting establishments decide, but the problem is that those who are unwilling or, for health reasons, unable to sit in a smoky restaurant get penalized by your right to light up.

You can still eat your steak (or tofu) at the restaurant without smoking. Someone with Asthma can not. There is a difference between a nasty habit that is just annoying to someone else, and one which is debilitating.


On a side note, do you think non-smoking citizens (or even other healthy smokers) should have to shoulder the costs of a smoker with lung cancer or whatever other sicknesses they develop? That's not meant as an affront, but rather a question out of my own curiousity.

You have the same choices at your disposal that the rest of us have.. You can choose which establishments to frequent based upon their decisions.

 

[speederdoc]

Wow. And from a fellow RX-8'r. Sad

Who are you over on the other site? I can't figure it out yet by your posts.

 

[Mr. P]

Not any meaner than people ejaculating all over the bedspread and walls. Now that is gross. Next time you go to a hotel, bring a blacklight with you. :wank:

It's NOT a pretty sight!! It's everywhere too, from the low cost No tell hotel to the high dollar ones...

 

[CSM]

The problem is, your nasty habit hurts other people. I would be perfectly ok with letting establishments decide, but the problem is that those who are unwilling or, for health reasons, unable to sit in a smoky restaurant get penalized by your right to light up.

You can still eat your steak (or tofu) at the restaurant without smoking. Someone with Asthma can not. There is a difference between a nasty habit that is just annoying to someone else, and one which is debilitating.


On a side note, do you think non-smoking citizens (or even other healthy smokers) should have to shoulder the costs of a smoker with lung cancer or whatever other sicknesses they develop? That's not meant as an affront, but rather a question out of my own curiousity.

Well, I have to put up with annoying drunken slobs in public places (like the same bar you want to ban smoking in) and their nasty drinking habits sometimes leads to either self inflicted injuries, or worse, injuries to other persons when they wreck their cars. I have to pay for that either indirectly or directly. Same with folks who drive motorcycles without wearing a helmet.
I wont even get into the whole drug thing, firearm thing or even the sexually transmitted diseases.

The point is, folks have choices. You dont like my smoking...go someplace I am not. On the other hand, I pay for roadway use, cannot avoid using roads, etc. Medical and insurance costs are through the roof because of idiots who drink and drive, drug users who spread HIV etc. Why single out smokers per say? The argument could be made that your right to drink is debilitating to me. Even folks who eat to excess (asthmatic or not) has an economic impact on me.

I guess the bottom line is that if we try to regulate individual actions beyond a reasonable limit, no one will be allowed to do anything....

 

[CSM]

You have the same choices at your disposal that the rest of us have.. You can choose which establishments to frequent based upon their decisions.

YEAH! What she said!