A conversation I had with a friend on Facebook inspired me to write about this subject. He had joined a movement urging the state of Michigan to ban smoking in businesses including bars and restaurants. I for one would be ecstatic if everyone stopped smoking altogether but I don't think the government should have that power over businesses.
First of all, smoking is legal. Why should the government be able to tell a business owner that they can't have something legal occurring in their establishment? I told my friend this is a very slippery slope. He agreed but said that it is one we need to approach. So what's next? Will businesses that serve alcohol be required to obtain a person's car keys or give proof of an alternative mode of transportation before serving them alcohol?
This is already happening in some states but I think this is certainly not the time for Michigan to give it a whirl. Our economy is about the worst out there. If bars were no longer able to allow their patrons to smoke, I suspect a whole lot more people would be going to Canada, Ohio or elsewhere out of state for their business or they'll just stay at home and drink and smoke. The other outcome would be the bars would ignore the new restriction, get hit with a fine and end up out of business.
I say if smoking is legal it should be up to the business owner as to whether or not to allow it. If they want to exclude the smokers, that's their right but if they need the smokers or even want them, why shouldn't they if it is a legal activity? Anyone who has a problem with smoke need not visit the establishment.
I'll be interested to hear others opinions on the subject.
I joined the same Facebook group with some of the same issues that JillUser expressed.
The further away a government is from my position in society the more I want them to stay the hell out of my live. I'm willing to put up with more intrusion at the city level than at the federal. That's how I roll.
I believe that smoking costs the gov't money in health care. That's my money. If they can pass a law that saves me money [fewer tax dollars spent], makes my life better [I don't have to smell that smell and lessons my chance of cancer], and doesn't inconvenience me [as a long-time ex-smoker] I'm all for it.
And at the state level if it fails to accomplish what it's intended to do or has a detrimental effect elsewhere, it can be changed.
O really... and what about people that eat un healthy? what about people that get cancer... what about people that pop out kids every year? Are you going to bad fast food? cheetos? Kick people out of your state that has terminal deseases?
I guess I'll pose the question this way- If the government has deemed smoking as hazardous to peoples health and the only way you can smoke and avoid harming others is by being completely alone while smoking, why not make it illegal?
If you are living with anyone else and smoking in your home, you harm them. If you ever smoke in your car with a passenger, you harm them. The idea of banning smoking in businesses public or otherwise is it harms others. So why isn't it illegal?
The way I see it, the government wants to be able to keep making money off from smokers but wants to take away the right of private business owners to do the same.
You know what though . . I don't really care about NYC. That is their local gov't problem and as New Yorkers, it's their job to vote the schmucks in or out that support what they believe in.
And as a matter of fact . . if we in Michigan had the best socialized medicine in the country and Ohio-ans started flocking here I would support laws to set residency rules and limit care to those that fulfill those rules
BINGO!
Jill Id hug ya for finally seeing the real reason why smoking is the new deamon! Its not because they want to "help" others and live a healthier lifestyle... its just a front for the real reason WHY they are doing it which is... as you stated.... money. Its easy to make alot off taxes in the name of "better health"
This is the reason why I said where does it stop. When will junk food be taxed when the smoking tax goes away because no one is smoking... and you know damn well the gov will not cut spending... so they will make it someplace else and deem something else as the "evil"
socailized medicine... your nuts right... you want the Gov to run the healthcare? You think that your insurance company is tough to deal with... wait till you have to deal with the gov for health care.
which is why i wish they would pass a law forbidding the use of taxpayer money to treat smoking related illnesses.
Frankly I resent any law that treats adults like children. These laws should extend only as far as banning smoking in any place that allows minors and requiring any etablishment that doesn't allow minors and allows smoking to post a notice on the entrance informing people that they allow smoking.
Children often have no choice where they go, but adults do, and if they read the notice and choose to enter anyway that's their business and they have no right to bitch.
This nanny state metality is absurd and should be stopped at once. Adults should be allowed to make their own decisions, period. The whiners should just get over it and stop trying to tell everyone else what they should and shouldn't do.
Lately I've been using a smokeless electronic cigarette that produces no smoke and no odor and the whiners are already trying to come up with a good reason to get them banned. Why? Because they just don't like the idea and want to tell people what they should and shouldn't do.
The people who are behind the smoking bans (the money is coming from Johnson and Johnson who happens to be the world's largest maker of smoking cessation aids) just don't like the fact that a product is available that addressed all of their objections but still allows people to do what they enjoy doing.
It's not about health for these sheeple, it's about control. Telling other people what they can and can't do. These people should simply be shot on sight and rid the world of an inane group of people who have nothing better to do than try and run other people's lives.
I for one vote for a federal Grow Up and Get Over It And Mind Your Own Damn Business law.
There's another angle on this smoking argument. You all seem to be focusing very heavily on the smoke angle. It's not just about smoke.
First of all, all bars you'd want to go to allow smoking. Otherwise they won't get the young people who think it's cool. So there really isn't any choice for the non-smoker who wants to avoid smoke, you can just pick between levels of haze.
Since smoking in bars was banned in my town a few years back, I've spent drastically less on dry-cleaning bills and haven't lost a single piece of clothing to cigarette burns. I also haven't had a cigarette burn on my face, neck or arms from some drunk with expressive hand talk or bad dance moves.
If you're in a decent bar, and people are smoking, smoke-wrecked clothes and burns are practically inevitable.
Take away the right to smoke, and the bar is still packed. You just get some pathetic people sitting or standing outside getting their fix. But there's no smoke in the air inside, and no dozens of little flames in the hands of the heavily intoxicated, so no little fires breaking out every hour or so.
In my view that works for everyone.
I see both sides. Personally, I hate having the government telling any establishment what they can or can not do. I frequent places that don't smell like smoke. I voice my opinion with my $$$$.The government should be careful where they tread.
That being said, I am a hypocrite.
I heartily support any regulation that forbids smoking on public transport...even those run by private (sort of) companies such as airlines. (they are only semi-private-they suck at the government teat way too often...but that aside...), busses, subways etc.
I support regulations that forbid smoking within a certain distance of the entrance to a public place or yes, private enterprise. Walmart smokers that crowd the door piss me off. Smoke. Go for it. But don't force me to walk through your stench and toxic cloud with my kids. A restraunt that offers a no smoking area is great, but if they don't have a no smoking waiting area till we get a table, what's the point?
I support a smoking ban in places near children. Parks, schools, bus stops. Don't smoke near kids. Eww.
I don't support a 100% ban, (free choice is a great thing) but I would like equal rights. Have smoking options, but have an option for me too!
On that thought, since we want to protect kids from parents and others who smoke....let's ban nasty foul mouthed mothers who think it's okay to cuss other people out and threaten to 'kick your "*@ &%*@&% ass' in front of a toddler and little kid. Dang. Smoking might be a bit less harmful to those kids! (but that's a thought for another day)
I agree with MasonM....if it is an adult only establishment...the government should stay out. Strip clubs, bars etc...are sleazy enough. If they ban cigarettes, why not liquor?
The presence of minors is the difference. Bars, Stip clubs, private clubs, bingo....smoke away. Bowling, malls, resturaunts....those are a grey area. Parents can choose to protect the kids by avoiding those establishments, but it would be nice to have the optionfor clean air there. Schools, parks....ban away.
While the military health care has some advantages....there are enough flaws in the system to make me realize jsut how much socialized medicine is not a great idea as a national option.
I agree in a nutshell... problem is we end up footing their health bills later on because we can't get the bleeding hearts to just let people deal with the consequences of their choice. A hospital MUST treat your lung cancer, even if it is self inflicted and you did it knowingly, it will do so on taxpayer dollar. No nanny state cuts both ways.
On the other hand, id rather pay a little more in taxes to treat idiots who ruin their health then have the government tell me what I can and can not do with my body. I never EVER touched a cigarette. Not even when the second hottest girl my in high school pinched my butt and offered me to share a cig with her (and possibly more - actually I should have gone somewhere with that, god I was a nerd) Back to the point. I don't like the idea of the nanny telling me I CAN'T if I wanted to though because its "not healthy".
A smoking ban would likely decrease demand for cigarrettes, meaning the government would make less money from taxes, so if a government does pursue such a policy, it suggests it's more likely to be for altruistic purposes rather than to make money.
Now that's Manning Up! I like it!
You're not. You're not saying that the gov should be able to ban it from a privately owned establishment. That's different.
If it was altruism they would just make smoking illegal because it harms everyone.
Any smokers want to chime in on what a ridiculous statement this is?
a smoking ban will send prices sky high and simply move it off to the organized crime territory.
Like all other drugs. Look up prohibition.
I've been following this topic for days and just have to get in my 2 cents worth.
First, this is the US, not Canada, Ireland, Germany, etc, and we Americans are concerned about the behavior of OUR govt. In the past we've seen an increasing inclination of Uncle Sam to surrepticiously inculcate himself into the private lives of citizens and this is frightening. And the smoking ban in public places (but "private" businesses) is just such an example. Think about this - 50 years ago SS numbers were voluntary. People got one when they got their 1st job so the govt could keep track of earnings and return it to citizens upon retirement in the form of Social Security. If you didn't work you didn't need a number. Today this number is required and issued to babies at birth. Children can't attend public school without it. And it's on everyone's military ID, drivers license, pilots license, insurance policies, medical records, tax returns and who knows what else. Our lives are linked to this number and the govt has easy access to any info connected to it.
Now let's fast forward to 2050 when we all have microchips implanted in our arms at birth with our identification on it. We can be scanned for medical records, driving records, criminal records, whereabouts on any given day and time (GPS included in the chip). This will initially come about because young families will be convinced that this chip will protect their children in case of abduction. And once this voluntary procedure becomes the norm it's use will expand until it's the standard, no longer a choice but a legal requirement. I know this seems fanciful but consider this, I don't want to have a SS number but nobody cares.
As far as smoking in bars, etc goes, (public places but "private" businesses) why not let the market place set the rules. If people want smokeless establishments and there's one non-smoking bar in town, it'll get all the businesses. Soon the other business owners will follow suit and go the smokless route. And everybody can choose whether he wants to suffer second hand smoke or breathe clean air - it beats the govt choosing for us.
BTW, if the health risk of second hand smoke is unacceptable to most Americans then our govt owes it to us to make smoking illegal!
Allowing people to drive harms some people. Should we ban driving?
My mistake. Making it more inconvenient and less enjoyable to smoke will clearly increase demand for cigarrettes, not decrease it! Smoking in the freezing cold and rain will become the most fashionable thing to do, with even non-smokers tempted outside to join in the fun!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States
I'm with you on that one, taltamir.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
