Originally Posted by Spider

My choice shouldn't have to depend on whether or not the air inside is safe (let alone pleasant) to breathe.



And smokers aren't?

You and I are still hung up on whose right is more important, and I don't see us reaching any agreement. Smokers have a right to do what ever they want until it effects me. I have the right to a smoke free enviroment wherever I choose to go, except in a strictly private (not open to the public) setting.

I would still argue the reverse.

One of the major problems I have with these smoking regulations is that we are talking about a practice that is legal and taxed.

We are all aware of the dangers of alcohol. This is why alcohol is not allowed to be sold to minors and there is laws against drunk driving. However because alcohol is still legal and taxed drinkers of alcohol are allowed to drink in a bar with other people who choose to drink.

The banning of smoking in all group settings does not allow for smokers to socially interact with other people who choose to smoke. Can't you see the hypocrisy in that when compared to bars and alcohol?

Originally Posted by ccbig

I would still argue the reverse.

One of the major problems I have with these smoking regulations is that we are talking about a practice that is legal and taxed.

We are all aware of the dangers of alcohol. This is why alcohol is not allowed to be sold to minors and there is laws against drunk driving. However because alcohol is still legal and taxed drinkers of alcohol are allowed to drink in a bar with other people who choose to drink.

The banning of smoking in all group settings does not allow for smokers to socially interact with other people who choose to smoke. Can't you see the hypocrisy in that when compared to bars and alcohol?

Good point! When someone in my vicinity drinks alcohol, it doesn't endanger me. But when someone drinks alcohol and gets in a car on a public road or a private parking lot, it does endanger me. That's why it's illegal. Similarly, when someone smokes a cigarette in my vicinity it also endangers me, which is why it should be illegal, too.

I understand the legality and taxation issues, but shooting a gun is also legal and taxable and you still can't do it in a public place.

Originally Posted by ccbig

I would still argue the reverse.

One of the major problems I have with these smoking regulations is that we are talking about a practice that is legal and taxed.

We are all aware of the dangers of alcohol. This is why alcohol is not allowed to be sold to minors and there is laws against drunk driving. However because alcohol is still legal and taxed drinkers of alcohol are allowed to drink in a bar with other people who choose to drink.

The banning of smoking in all group settings does not allow for smokers to socially interact with other people who choose to smoke. Can't you see the hypocrisy in that when compared to bars and alcohol?

Alchol is legal and taxed, just like smoking, and can only be consumed in certain areas where the government says it's ok. Just because a private business wants to allow the consumption of alchol doesn't mean that they can, in the same way that just because a bar wants to allow smoking it doesn't mean that they can.

Yeah, ccbig, I could have quit that job, but I needed it and the job I had before that was just as bad. After that I freelanced and got to sit in lots of different smoky offices and studios.

Blue, my husband has asthma too. We like to go to a blues bar here, and we used to try to get there as soon as it started because he could breathe the air before it started to get smokey. We'd pay a hefty admission and have to leave after the first set - he'd cough and wheeze for the next two days. We stopped going altogether because he just couldn't handle the smoke. Now we can stay as long as we want, thanks to the no smoking laws. Sorry if you don't agree ccbig, it's just the way it is for us.

Originally Posted by ccbig

Nonsense. You knew of the risk and didn't work there. You could have waitered at a smoke free diner. You had a choice to work, and the freedom to choose where to work.

If you chose not to work at a dynamite factory because it is dangerous should dynamite factories be banned because they are dangerous?

There was no choice in Columbia, Mo. Don't you dare say what I have to say is nonsense just because you don't agree with it.

Honestly, I am glad that ccbig isn't in the legislature in Illinois because his beliefs would have kept me either in the hospital or in my house. In Illinois, you can't really smoke anywhere in public -- even the outdoors are regulated -- and I, along with many others with lung problems rejoiced when the law was passed. Try sitting in an oxygen tent before you start arguing personal freedom to smoke with me. I didn't have much freedom then.

... uh, common sense check people. How many of you knowingly go to "smoke-filled bars" on purpose? I'm not talking bars that allow smoking, but the slippery slope of this defense, a smoke-filled bar choking out patrons?

Personally, I like the non-smoking thing in certain places, but there are some dungy, holes-in-the-wall where the bar tender smokes, the waitstaff smokes, the doorman smokes, the guy with the trache smokes, everyone in the place is usually smoking ... do the people who complain about the smoking ban and their health EVER go into those places?

Most people in this discussion would never want to work at these types of places, yet they use it as a crutch of the argument. Honestly, are you working at Slappy's Bait Shop & Grille and complaining about smoking? If it were someplace nice like a Granite City or something of the like ... I can understand. Family establishments, etc.

Don't tell the irish hooligan soccer bar with the flat beer and salty patrons they can't smoke ... why? Chances are the smoking ban proponents will never go in there to start with.

I do, however, like coming home and not reeking of cigarettes and when I'm out with friends, the ban keeps me from rifling through a pack. So it's been good for me, but don't forget to use common sense when arguing this fact.

I went bowling on Friday ... the stench of cigarettes wasn't present ... something didn't feel right. This was no TRUE bowling alley.

Originally Posted by Spider

Good point! When someone in my vicinity drinks alcohol, it doesn't endanger me. But when someone drinks alcohol and gets in a car on a public road or a private parking lot, it does endanger me. That's why it's illegal. Similarly, when someone smokes a cigarette in my vicinity it also endangers me, which is why it should be illegal, too.

I understand the legality and taxation issues, but shooting a gun is also legal and taxable and you still can't do it in a public place.

When someone drinks they put you at risk of many things. More drunks are going to start fights or stumble and maybe knock you over(you could break a hip Spider!). As Augie Smith said, if he doesn't want to hear screaming kids he doesn't go to Chuck E. Cheese, its that simple. I don't like McDonald's food, so I don't go there, I don't need the government banning their horrible food for me.

I would rather all places be smoke free. It is the persons choice that they smoke, not everyone else should have to deal with it.

I do not smoke and I have never even tried a to smoke a cancer stick. Usually when I go out it is to socialize with friends and have a good time, that is the only thing that really seems to ruin it for me.

Originally Posted by fanforlife

I would rather all places be smoke free. It is the persons choice that they smoke, not everyone else should have to deal with it.

I do not smoke and I have never even tried a to smoke a cancer stick. Usually when I go out it is to socialize with friends and have a good time, that is the only thing that really seems to ruin it for me.

I agree, I would like every public place to be smoke-free, but I think the business owner should have the choice and the government should not have their hands in it.