Smoking, same rights as free speech?

So again, there's a difference between unruly kids, or most other ill mannered behaviors, and smoking in a bar or restaurant. It's a pretty easy concept to comprehend so you need to be asked, why do you not get this? Originally Posted by Doove

Well very simply because you haven't shown a causal relationship between occasionally visiting a restaurant that allowed smoking in a designated area and any resulting damage to other patrons that was any more distressing than that caused by the inconsiderate parents of the snotty kids. Instead, you took my premise of a foul odor maybe wafting by your table and warped it into a toxic waste dump to make your point. I suspect that if I warp any premise enough, I can prove the contrary.

But hell, for all I know you might be agreeing with me again and I just don't understand your attempts at declarative sentences.

Instead, you took my premise of a foul odor maybe wafting by your table and warped it into a toxic waste dump to make your point. I suspect that if I warp any premise enough, I can prove the contrary. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I didn't warp anything. I'm not one harping on the 2nd hand smoke argument, valid as i think it is. I'm pointing out that there's a vast difference between the annoyance caused by smoking and the annoyance caused by unruly kids. And there is. In more ways than one.

If you don't want laws against unruly kids, fine. When one is passed, complain about it. This is not a law against unruly kids, nor is it a law against red or green or yellow or silver or black or white or fuchsia colored cars.

That's not an accurate presentation of the situation....but even if that was the case....



...do you really think you have some kind of divine protected right to enjoy Tudor's fine cuisine in a smoke-free environment?

...shouldn't Tudor have the right, as an individual operator of a private business on private property, to tell you and your asthma to go to hell...if you don't like the smoke don't eat there...or get takeout Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Maybe, but that is a restaurant. The workplace or government buildings are different. I went to a cigar bar here in Houston about a month ago. I had to leave my purse, belt and shoes in front of a fan overnight and for part of the next day to get the smoke smell out. I put my clothes in the wash as soon as I got home and had to wash my hair twice to get the smell out of it. No, I’m not a big favor of smoking in public places. I think it is a simple case of majority ruling. The majority of folks don’t smoke and we don’t’ want to be around it.

Smoking, until it was knocked off by obesity, used to be the number one cause of preventable death. Yes, yes we all die of something, but smoking does accelerate it. I just don’t understand why people would do it. It stinks. It’s expensive. It’s horrible for you. And you don’t a buzz off of it or anything.

I was on a date once and he actually took out a cigarette and light up in the car. Gross! If he’d have asked, I’d have said, we can stop and get out, but to smoke a cigarette with a non-smoker in the car and the windows rolled up is just rude.

Not to be argumentative here and this is just for the sake of the discussion. Did you not know that there would be smoking in the cigar bar? If you did know, why did you go in knowing how the smell would affect your belongings and your hair?

I agree that "majority of folks don’t smoke and we don’t’ want to be around it". I have no problem with a majority of public places being smoke free. I would however, like to have a choice. (Note to self: check and see if there is a cigar bar in my area)

Public places (like the DMV and offices where the general public have to go for one thing or another) should remain smoke free. Work places that cater to the public in that regard should also be smoke free. If as a non-smoker I were to be applying for a job somewhere, I would choose not to apply at a place that allows smoking. If it didn't bother me, I could work in either environment. Again, it would be my choice as to where I look for a job.

As far as that date went... yes it was very rude of him not to ask if you minded that he lit up.

There should be a law against blowing smoke up my ass





(Am I the only one who will put up with smoke when I'm chasing tail and then turn into a smoke free mofo after catching it)

I didn't warp anything. I'm not one harping on the 2nd hand smoke argument, valid as i think it is. I'm pointing out that there's a vast difference between the annoyance caused by smoking and the annoyance caused by unruly kids. And there is. In more ways than one.

If you don't want laws against unruly kids, fine. When one is passed, complain about it. This is not a law against unruly kids, nor is it a law against red or green or yellow or silver or black or white or fuchsia colored cars. Originally Posted by Doove

Interesting. I guess I was having the same problem as PJ. You have no less than a dozen posts in this thread...and I now think I have a fairly clear undertanding of what you were not saying. What is it you were saying?

Does anybody on the 'pro smoker' side think it's ok for someone to pull up next to you in a car blasting their bass so loud your car vibrates? Makes you want bitch slap them huh? That's how I feel about smokers in public places.

Does anybody on the 'pro smoker' side think it's ok for someone to pull up next to you in a car blasting their bass so loud your car vibrates? Makes you want bitch slap them huh? That's how I feel about smokers in public places. Originally Posted by Sa_artman

Well if that is going to be the new standard...then there are several on here that need to duck.

Does anybody on the 'pro smoker' side think it's ok for someone to pull up next to you in a car blasting their bass so loud your car vibrates? Makes you want bitch slap them huh? That's how I feel about smokers in public places. Originally Posted by Sa_artman

A road is a public place...

My contention is that "Tudor's Steakhouse" or another privately owned restaurant is not a "public place" - Charles should be able to set policy regarding legal activity within his establishment, to include smoking policy.

Oh, and Tushy, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about nightclubs...do the operators have an obligation to serve the "ugly people" or is it ok for them to discriminate as to their clientele, just letting in attractive people or those with a celebrity status?

Truth in Advertising: I'm a non-smoker whose doc's have told to stay away from all forms of tobacco smoke for my own sight and safety.

Don't believe the US Constitution gives the Feds the right to tell folks they can or cannot smoke. They can, however, regulate the manufacturers using the Interstate Commerce clause.
That said, the states, on their own, can regulate tobacco usage anytime they see fit depending, of course, on their own Constitutions.

There are enormous differences in free speech and smoking. First, the Constitution has a right to free speech. It doesn't have a right to smoke. Second, second hand smoke is dangerous and causes disease and some numbers of deaths. Free speech causes neither. Smoking also imposes costs on the State through Medicare, Medicaid, CHIPS, etc. through smoking related illnesses. Free speech does not.

Certainly one method of regulation of smoking is to let the market regulate it. However, it is clear that method failed and that there were very few, if any, bars where citizens could go to enjoy a drink without endangering their health. (Not to mention those who work there and don't smoke.) So I think that the type of regulation we have now is a valid, and certainly a Constitutional, approach. And it obviously works better as you have more places that are smoke free -- which is clearly the preferred outcome from a public health standpoint. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

If you owned a bar or a restaurant or a club where wedding receptions were held, that LOST 90% of the revenue six years ago in WI, you might think differently.

If you were one of the employees of these establishments that LOST THEIR F*CKING jobs six yrs ago, you might think differently.

If you realized that, at least in some states, the ppl riding these bills to pass are STAY AT HOMES, who never are even in a position to be affected by "2nd hand smoke". You might think different.

:: shrug ::

Interesting. I guess I was having the same problem as PJ. You have no less than a dozen posts in this thread...and I now think I have a fairly clear undertanding of what you were not saying. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Oh look PJ, you've got a white knight.

How sweet.

That said, the states, on their own, can regulate tobacco usage anytime they see fit depending, of course, on their own Constitutions. Originally Posted by John Bull

Correct...these are state and city laws!

If you owned a bar or a restaurant or a club where wedding receptions were held, that LOST 90% of the revenue six years ago in WI, you might think differently.

If you were one of the employees of these establishments that LOST THEIR F*CKING jobs six yrs ago, you might think differently.

:: Originally Posted by Bella_HHD

Bella,

People that owned/worked in sweat shops could make that same arguement.

Does anyone think it a bad idea to ban them on planes?

Oh look PJ, you've got a white knight.

How sweet. Originally Posted by Doove

He is not a cheap date though.

Oh, and Tushy, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about nightclubs...do the operators have an obligation to serve the "ugly people" or is it ok for them to discriminate as to their clientele, just letting in attractive people or those with a celebrity status? Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I ain't Tushy, but i'll answer if you respond to my point about whether or not OSHA or the board of health would allow, in a workplace or business area catering to the public, the equivalent of an environment created in a smoked filled bar or restaurant under any other circumstances - without proper precautions being required (such as masks).