alexis91169 on 3/18/2008 10:24:11 PM wrote:
Oh my! Laughing at some of the posts. Have to love the restaurant owners protecting their rights to serve whomever they want in their businesses, smokers thank you! Many restaurants have lost alot of biz from some groups that used to go very often b/c of change to a non-smoking establishment & go elsewhere. I read many posts but had to quit once reading katz4u, another Kat here. Katz is right, there are many smokers that have the right to not hearing your out of control kids screaming everywhere they go, and about others' perfume & cologne...marination is not needed! Katz forgot to add the minivan driving moms w/ the cell phones in one hand & heads facing the backseat while swerving in the opposite lanes, detrimental to my survival rate!
|
Walker on 2/18/2008 11:04:43 AM wrote:
Your right Biker.
And those paper bags you get at the supermarket...we're killing trees left and right. We need to use plastic bags instead...
What's that you say? We have to use the paper bags again? OK, that's kind of a flip-flop. So, which is it?
Where is the Grand Priest Algore when you need him? Let's find out what HE is using, that way we'll know what to use.
What's that again? He doesn't have to follow his own decrees? Oh, yeah, that's right the Jumbo jets and the McMansions, sorry I forgot. Do as he says, not as he does, got it.
So, if I see the Grand Potentate Gore drinking out of an Evian bottle...that means it NOT okay to drink bottled water? Ok, I got it now. Just want to make sure we are on the same page.
|
bikerjohn on 2/18/2008 8:15:58 AM wrote:
So, can we move on and start talking about banning bottled water? I hear that's immoral and contributes to global warming, not to mention a huge waste of petroleum. Have you been to the beach lately?
|
Walker on 2/16/2008 8:33:48 AM wrote:
Glad the bills didn't pass. Looks like someone actually read the Constitution in Richmond.
Or maybe all the "TALK" from our state legislators about the bans was just that. Talk, to pacify the loons, "I feel your pain, but we just couldn't get it done this time."
Regardless, I'm happy those in Richmond agreed that these bills were un-Constitutional and let them die.
|
Adowntownbusiness on 2/16/2008 6:06:52 AM wrote:
So, as I understand it, the legislature is ok with saving the poor by limiting them to five payday loans a year, but doesn't care enough about all of us to save us from inhaing cigarette smoke?
|
Walker on 2/14/2008 4:50:14 PM wrote:
Here is an example of what's next.
http://www.startribune.com/local/15617577.html
|
TripleActionJones on 2/11/2008 9:23:03 AM wrote:
I understand where you guys are coming from and am not trying come across like people should have to put up with smoke in their face.Just saying there's some choices out there & they seem to be growing.
I don't want anyone telling you what to do with your uterus OR personal property.
Also...
"Tell me one place we can see live music someplace here in Roanoke."
Since you're talking about that,I will echo your sentiment,except tailor them to say that I wish there were more places to see live music that's more outside the mainstream.
I can see some cover bands,blues, and acoustic type acts here.
But I prefer more underground music and that is much harder to find here. It IS around,but not as prevalent as the aforementioned genres
|
TripleActionJones on 2/11/2008 9:22:52 AM wrote:
"kapwinnnng on 2/7/2008 11:47:38 PM wrote:
My wife and I went to Metro!, Corned Beef, and 202 Market .."
Just like to point out that there are some non-smoking places downtown.
The new Blue 5 restaurant downtown is smoke free and features live music.
You've got Trio on Market St.
There are several others downtown too.
I was actually in Metro the other night and of the whole bar area there were maybe 3 smokers.Perhaps I'm not as affected by smoke but that few didn't bother me any.
There are a lot of restaurants choosing to be smoke free now and doing well.That new Irish pub,Annie Moore's,decided to start out that way and they seem to be doing quite well.
I've noticed nearly all the Mexican restaurants in town are smoke-free now.
|
herewegoagain on 2/11/2008 12:39:12 AM wrote:
kapwinning has asked some pertinent questions.
It's easy to accept smoking bans in most places of business, because people don't stay there long. Restaurants are different. We don't eat there just to stay alive and healthy; we go to enjoy ourselves. For many, that enjoyment includes having a smoke.
Going smokeless voluntarily is not likely to help most businesses in the short run. Their smoking customers will desert them immediately, but nonsmokers are already accustomed to patronizing other places and are not going to change their habits without a good reason.
In the long run, market forces will drive smoking out everywhere. Those who think property rights will protect them forever will be disappointed.
|
kapwinnnng on 2/9/2008 8:45:23 AM wrote:
Smoking is already banned in most other public places like malls, grocery stores and other places of employment.
Why should non-smokers have to put up with smoke if we want to go out? Tell me one place we can see live music (other than at a civic center or arena) someplace here in Roanoke.
Local clubs are missing out on my $50+ per weekend because we don't like the smoke.
And about your uterus, pregnant women should not be subject to the smoke either!
Birth control is a different topic altogether, and is not about public health.
My main concern on this is public health. It affects more than just my wife and me.
Check out this site if you still aren't convinced.
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422
|
Entropy on 2/9/2008 2:10:04 AM wrote:
nah, next on the agenda is them coming into my uterus and telling me what to do with it!
Amazing the hypocrisy.
|
Walker on 2/8/2008 10:35:49 AM wrote:
Let me say...I too enjoy smoke-free environments.
However, it is simply not my right to inflict my personal tastes on private businesses (except by boycott).
I wouldn't want someone coming to my home or land and telling me what I could and couldn't legally do there. And believe me that's next on the agenda.
|
kapwinnnng on 2/7/2008 11:54:54 PM wrote:
On a side note, I would like to see some statistics research on smoking vs. non-smoking on the following topics:
Are employees healthier without all of the smoke?
How has the attendance of clubs/bars changed after they went non-smoking?
|
kapwinnnng on 2/7/2008 11:47:38 PM wrote:
As non-smokers, my wife and I are sad that this legislation has not passed, again. Florida has had the same law for years now, and Maryland is enacting an indoor smoking ban this month. Second hand smoke is public health risk. Plain and simple. I understand the argument that property owners want to be able to choose whether their establishment is smoking or not, but as a patron, I wish everything was non-smoking.
My wife and I went to Metro!, Corned Beef, and 202 Market with some non-smoking friends a few weekends ago. We all had sore throats the next day from all the smoke. Our clothes reeked of smoke and went right into the washer when we got home.
Bottom line: we would go out much more often if Virginia was smoke free.
|
Entropy on 2/7/2008 11:31:11 PM wrote:
Of course i do Walker. This is my earth too. Not just RJ Reynolds.
|
Walker on 2/7/2008 2:08:44 PM wrote:
Property Rights.
As long as smoking is LEGAL, the owner of the Deli can allow his patrons to smoke there. It's called OWNING your property and deciding what can be done (legally) there.
A factory emitting hazardous wastes of ANY kind, does hurt others without their consent. When you go to a bar...you are consenting to being around smoke. Suck it up and be a grown-up. You don't need a nanny anymore do you?
By your lame arguments Entropy, I'm beginning to think you don't believe in "Personal Property" or property rights?
|
Entropy on 2/7/2008 12:23:29 PM wrote:
sorry walker, your argument doesn't hold water.
if it were as simple as that, we would be able to do all sorts of harmful to the public yet legal activities on our private property. If the smoker could keep his smoke to himself then it would be a private property issue, but he/she cant control the smoke. So it becomes a public health issue... just like emissions from factories are a public health issue and specific ordinances keep places like that away from residential zones.
|
Walker on 2/7/2008 8:56:23 AM wrote:
It IS completely and utterly about property rights and people being personally accountable, period.
Take control of your OWN life, if you don't want to be around smoke, don't go the PRIVATE property where they allow smoking.
What if a friend has a Super Bowl party every year, but she allows people to smoke through-out her home. Should you be allowed to make her tell people they can't smoke because it bothers you?
It's the same thing, private property is private property.
Stop depending on the government to wipe your tail for you and take care of yourself.
|
Entropy on 2/6/2008 3:23:07 PM wrote:
Obesity is also a problem, but one idiot who gorges themselves on Whoppers or Pizza does not negatively affect random people in the same vicinity, as smoking does. Should the government regulate what we eat? Not in the simplistic fashion you think I'm talking about. I think they should continue on the same path they have been going. For example local governments have enacted legislation to ban foods from being prepared with trans fats. I think its a great move to protect stupid people from making stupid decisions. There are no self-powered vehicles allowed on the interstate because it's stupid and dangerous. The law protects the driver of said self-powered vehicle and those around them, whether or not they want it. Same thing really.
|
Entropy on 2/6/2008 3:18:14 PM wrote:
TAJ, you're oversimplifying things, and assuming this is a property issue, which it isn't. Calling it a property issue is the common deflective defense from right-wingers from the fact that is a public health issue, which affects people who do not choose to take part in a reckless dangerous addiction.
(cont'd)
|
TripleActionJones on 2/6/2008 2:59:38 PM wrote:
So,Entropy,basically you are cool with the government telling you that you're not allowed do legal things on your own property and telling you what to eat.
Okay.
I understand you better now.
Ya know,that computer screen you're staring at is hard on your eyes.
Perhaps the government should limit your time on a computer to help save your eyes.
It's in your best interest.
I hope your dinner tonight is Big Brother approved.
|
Walker on 2/6/2008 2:53:58 PM wrote:
The fact that you support the ban on "trans fats" doesn't surprise me. Your a Federalist.
What's next?
Energy rationing? More limits on Free Speech (Fairness Doctrine)?
|
Entropy on 2/6/2008 1:36:50 PM wrote:
The government already is taking steps to curb what people eat. Thats why in many of the more progressive parts of the country Trans Fats are being banned from being a part of cooking food. On the whole I think that's a good thing, considering the marketing involved to get people to eat these terrible meals. (Read: ANY chain restaurant)
I don't really have a problem with smokers, as long as I'm not exposed to their health risks. I have less of a problem with overweight people because the risks they pose to other people are FAR less than a smoker's risk to other people.
(Go on tell me that fat people make insurance premiums for skinny people go up before you do research on it. I dare you. If you do, think about smokers premiums)
|
Walker on 2/6/2008 12:09:43 PM wrote:
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
Thomas Jefferson
|
Walker on 2/6/2008 11:53:58 AM wrote:
Ok, I lied I guess.
You guys that are for these bills must really love the idea of HillaryCare.
She said she is going to FORCE people to buy health care, whether they feel they need it or not.
If you don't buy into it...she is going to garnish your wages. Ahhh...the beauty of Socialism. I can't wait.
|
Walker on 2/6/2008 11:50:52 AM wrote:
"Sometimes the government really does need to step in and stop people from killing themselves and from being stupid."
A true Federalist.
I don't have anything to add to what TAJ said, he hit the nail on the head.
|
TripleActionJones on 2/6/2008 10:48:08 AM wrote:
So then you should be all about the bill Walker listed a few posts back.
It will help fat people keep themselves from getting fatter and endangering their health.
I agree that smoking is a very unhealthy habit.But if you're going to allow the government to step in and outlaw one legal substance on private property that you dislike then why not another and another?
Perhaps you should be required to meet a specific BMI(body mass index) to be allowed to order pizza or french fries instead of vegetables.
That falls under protecting people from themselves.
Look,I agree that smoking kills.
I just don't agree with the government telling people they cannot do something legal on their own property.
|
Entropy on 2/6/2008 10:01:54 AM wrote:
hmmm banning smoking indoors, or outdoors which is worse? I dunno. I think I'd much rather people be forced to go into a non-ventilated room in the basement of a building than smoke outside their establishment. That's a better idea. Walking down Jefferson St. through the cloud of smoke outside Carilion (ironic!) and Wachovia is so disgusting. Not to mention these people who throw their cigarette butts out on the street. Hey way to make the city look nice.
Sometimes the government really does need to step in and stop people from killing themselves and from being stupid.
|
newyorkrefugee on 2/1/2008 6:00:16 PM wrote:
he last one offers counties, cities and towns the option to pass ordinances banning smoking within their boundaries.
what if the county, city, or town decides it also wants to ban perfume, air fresheners and such...is that permitted.
|
newyorkrefugee on 2/1/2008 5:59:54 PM wrote:
Another bans smoking in all areas except for private homes, cars, private clubs, motel rooms designated for smoking, specialty tobacco stores, tobacco manufacturers and certain rooms in nursing homes and long-term care facilities.
so, I take it that the place I work would be off limits, how nice!!! I go into the place 8 hours a day and breath in their crap (just as dangerous, maybe more so), but, no, we can't go down into the basement where hardly anyone goes and smoke? umm...ya....the we can kill you with our crap, but you can't kill yourself with the things you enjoy just doesn't mesh with me, I am not a slaved that is owned...
|
newyorkrefugee on 2/1/2008 5:59:19 PM wrote:
there is three different proposals up...
one would ban smoking in resturants and bars...I could live with that..
|
Walker on 2/1/2008 3:36:49 PM wrote:
Mississippi bill to ban feeding the obese in restaraunts. Hilarious.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0201081fat1.html
|
madukz on 1/31/2008 2:27:17 PM wrote:
Go ahead and pass your stupid law! Cigarettes cost so much now, smokers can't afford to go out to eat anyway.
|
boater on 1/31/2008 8:36:57 AM wrote:
It is absolutely frightening to see the liberal mind at work. "It's not a ban, it's a regulation"
OK...how many of you over weight people are willing to let the government control what you eat? After all, do you have ANY idea how many people die and are disabled each year from obesity? The same people clamoring for this ban are the same ones clamoring for government run health care and again, it is frightening to see just how much of your life you want to turn over to big government.
I guess cars should be banned as well. After all, 40,000 people a year die in car accidents. Sheesh...
Wake up people.
|
bikerjohn on 1/28/2008 9:43:51 AM wrote:
And, to get back on topic, is it to have a smoke afterwards?
|
bikerjohn on 1/28/2008 9:42:30 AM wrote:
So, you "accidently" knock up your girlfriend. Then she decides to have an abortion. Do you have any say in the matter?
|
Entropy on 1/28/2008 5:34:20 AM wrote:
(con't) So to answer your question... i dont advocate abortions period. But that's MY own stance on it, and I don't really care what anyone else does. I can't even have one since I'm male, but if I got someone pregnant, there would be alternatives instead of abortion. Of course, I'm educated, in my 30's, upper middle-class, and would not have a financial, mental, or physical burden by bringing a life into this world. In a general sense, most women seeking abortions are not in as good of a place. For them, it may be a better option than going through with a pregnancy. However, that's not my decision, yours, the governments, or any of the religious nuts.
|
Entropy on 1/28/2008 5:27:35 AM wrote:
Walker, You didn't respond to my point about the kid in texas who tried to build a nuclear reactor in his basement. (look it up) It's private property. by your logic, he should have been able to.
As for abortion as a form of birth control, I was referring to the propensity of some of our youth these days who are too lazy (or too uneducated thanks to our abstinence-only education) to use multiple forms of proper birth control (such as a mix of condoms and the pill.) Of course it doesn't help matters that conservative retailers keep birth control under lock and key. Abortion should be an individual's choice, not a dictated religious belief (upon those that do not follow said doctrine.)
|
Walker on 1/25/2008 4:40:53 PM wrote:
Entropy-
Had a question for you (off-topic).
You said earlier you didn't advocate Abortion as a form of birth control, why not?
|
Walker on 1/25/2008 3:33:25 PM wrote:
I forget....is it LEGAL to make a SCUD missile in your basement?
Your comparison is, once again absurd.
|
Entropy on 1/25/2008 2:10:33 PM wrote:
and don't forget, this is a personal property issue, which means its ok to build your own personal scud missile in your basement!
Maybe those 'silly liberals' should make a ribbon for that!
|
Walker on 1/25/2008 10:39:10 AM wrote:
Roenoke-
I am not against personal responsibility. That's my whole point in fact, if you don't want to be around it, don't go to the Community Inn. Go to Montano's.
|
roenoke on 1/25/2008 8:39:03 AM wrote:
Walker, would your restaurant have to follow the govs health and food safety standards cause if not I aint eatin there.
And as long as the gov is not going to be telling people were they can smoke, can we stop paying for health care and home oxygen for expiring smokers. Oh and if they don't have the money, their families will have a choice too... they can pay for their loved ones care OR for the lethal injection.
They are just dying by their own choice why not make them do it on their own dime.
Veterans gotta pay too. I appreciate their service but it was their choice to smoke.
|
herewegoagain on 1/25/2008 4:29:59 AM wrote:
enufstuff? It sure is! "Smoking should be banned as a minimum in all restaurants" is just the totalitarian attitude that makes this movement such a bad idea.
Smokers are now -- what? 30% of the population? If we are, then we're entitled to 30% of the facilities.
|
Walker on 1/24/2008 5:00:49 PM wrote:
Entropy-
Smoking in a public place (Library) should not be allowed. My restaraunt, my rules. You don't like it, go somewhere else. Don't come in and expect ME to change the rules of my place.
This explains the liberal view on immigration perfectly. We Americans have to adapt to them.
Your comparison with the bleach is so stupid I can't even wrap my mind around how dumb it really is.
Last thing.
"Do I advocate abortion as a medical procedure used in cases where lives are at stake?"
I agree absolutely. That would accout for what percentage of the 50 plus million dead babies?
1% 5% 10% ?
My guess is around 5% given the BIG money thats involved. Planned Parenthood's cash cow.
|
Walker on 1/24/2008 4:48:44 PM wrote:
This should be easy.
"stop people from getting medical procedures"
I am for abortion only to save the life of the woman.
"access to birth control"
Not in our schools, kinda like prayer.
"want your children to pray to their jesus while they are at school"
Left-wing drivel, I don't want prayer in school. I just don't want anti-christian agenda driven teachers.
"want to tap your phone and track your habits to make sure your not a terrorist(communist)"
First off, McCarthy was right (beside the point), these phone taps are for suspects calling internationally. Your an idiot if you think its bad.
"conservatives want everyone to speak english"
Your damn right. If you want to be a citizen.
|
Entropy on 1/24/2008 4:35:00 PM wrote:
As for abortion, you say that im ignoring or promoting it? Where did I say it didn't exist or that people should go get them? I'm simply saying that it shouldn't be outlawed because of one radical group's theology. Do I advocate abortion as a form of birth control? hell no. Do I advocate it as a medical procedure used in cases where lives are at stake? hell yes. And like you don't want Government to get involved in your business? I don't want the Government to start dictating medical policy because a group of mostly uneducated religious zealots have a hunch on what life means... Thats why I call you a hypocrite. You want to defend the innocent children from abortions yet you wont defend their lungs after they're born. thats hypocrisy
|
Entropy on 1/24/2008 4:29:34 PM wrote:
So, Walker, if its a private property issue, then you obviously would defend that kid's right to build a nuclear reactor in basement down in texas? Your argument is simply an excuse. It shows no forethought whatsoever.
By smoking in public, smokers are infringing upon other people's choice to NOT have to breathe disgusting smoke. It's no different than an idiot standing on a street corner spraying bleach from a water gun into the crowd. Will it kill you if you get some bleach on you? Probably not, but it's annoying, could destroy your clothes and enough exposure could be harmful to your health.
What would happen if someone sprayed bleach from a water gun? They're probably end up in Guantanamo at this point.
|
roenoke on 1/24/2008 1:53:25 PM wrote:
"It's the LIBERAL FASCISTS out there who are trying to force you to live the way they want you to"
I love it!
hmmm, lets see, conservatives are trying to stop people from getting medical procedures, access to birth control, and vaccines...conservatives want your children to pray to their jesus while they are at school...conservatives want to tap your phone and track your habits to make sure your not a terrorist(communist)...conservatives want to control what you can read ...conservatives want everyone to speak english...Etc
oh i forget Walker is offended cause liberals want him to buy CFL lightbulb. thats really forcing you to "live the way they want you to"
Resist Walker! Stay strong!
|
Walker on 1/24/2008 12:27:04 PM wrote:
TAJ-
Nail on the head again.
Viper-
I see your point, but, does it make it right? Absolutely not.
I hear whining all the time from liberals (I don't know if you are or not, sorry if you aren't) about Bush and his taking away our rights, etc. All that nonsense.
Conservatives like myself (Bush isn't a true conservative) believe in individual rights, small government, etc.
It's the LIBERAL FASCISTS out there who are trying to force you to live the way they want you to, not the conservatives.
They want BIG government controlling nearly everything you do. What you eat (transfats)...what you drive (global warming joke)...what you are able to watch on TV or hear on the radio (fairness doctrine). What you are able to SAY even (Mcain-Feingold, Hate crime legislation). Orwellian?
|
TripleActionJones on 1/24/2008 12:21:36 PM wrote:
.
I just read this article and found it funny since here is this big discussion about restaurants and health problems.
Just sharing for amusement more than anything else.
Cut and paste this link for the article:
http://www.healthinspections.com/articles.cfm?YXJ0aWNsZUlEPTg4
Add lemon wedges to things you can ban in restaurants,heh.
A direct quote from the link:
" "You would think they had dipped the lemons in raw meat," she said, referring to the high levels of bacteria that she found.
The swabs of lemon wedges revealed everything from high counts of fecal bacteria to a couple of dozen other microorganisms -- most of which can make you sick. They found bacteria on the rind and on the flesh of the lemons. "
|
viper2007 on 1/24/2008 11:40:45 AM wrote:
Walker please, use that head for more than just a hat rack, Anytime you go into a food service business you go into business with the government like it or not, They tell you what you can & cannot do Right from the start.
So you may as well get past that, The law will pass at some point maybe this time maybe next but it will pass...........
|
TripleActionJones on 1/24/2008 9:35:30 AM wrote:
Entropy - I was just attempting some humor with the alcohol analogy, but I'm glad the flatulence one didn't offend you ....
"You right wing people..."
Haha....man,if you only knew me.
I'd say I'm offended but I don't want you to take me too seriously.
:)
Many more area restaurants are choosing on their own to go smoke-free and doing well.
Great.
And I agree that smoking is a nasty habit that causes disease and people have the right not to be around smoke. I just don't agree that the government can tell a person who owns a business that they can't do something in their establishment that is legal.
|
Walker on 1/24/2008 9:29:46 AM wrote:
Its a PRIVATE PROPERTY issue, plain and simple, you people are freaking nuts. Do you think the government should be able to tell you what you can do in your own house?
How about if you buy a business, should the government be able to tell you how to run it?
People who don't want to be around smoke...don't have to go to these places. Go somewhere else. If businesses suffer b/c of smoke, they will change, believe me. Bunch of freaking panty waists.
Whats funny, Entropy, is all you liberals out there crying about the health implications of this. Lets remember YOU have a CHOICE to go to these places.
Yet you happily promote/ignore ABORTION, which IS the murder of TRULY innocent babies. They don't have a choice.
Civil rights, yeah right.
|
viper2007 on 1/24/2008 1:15:01 AM wrote:
If that is what you call smoking is a right then that is one of my freedom and rights that I hope they do take,It is a killer that is what it is.I know because I live on a oxygen tank daily just to keep alive. I was a smoker for 25 years back when they did not have all the info on smoking that they have now.Let me tell you lack of oxygen is not going to be a good way to leave this world..
COPD since 1995.........Lee Arthur.
|
CindyG on 1/23/2008 10:46:55 PM wrote:
I think the thing is, Opinion, that there is no guaranteed right to smoke or to force other people to have to smell, ingest or be around health-damaging cigarette smoke.
It's not that our rights are dwindling, it's that our actions that hurt other people is what's being cracked down on and I'm all for it. My husband is a smoker, he is considerate enough to smoke only in his office with a smokeless ashtray but the smell still lingers down the hallway. He has a right to smoke. He does not have the right to pollute my air or anyone else's air with his addictions.
Again it's not a matter of what rights we keep getting taken away but what actions we do that harm other people that need to be cracked down on.
|
katz4u on 1/23/2008 7:42:30 PM wrote:
hey va smokers what happened to the freedoms of this country ...look at all the other groups that stick together and or stand up for each other when it counts ...arent any of the other smokers willing to stand up for our god given rights.... i think as long as im paying all the big taxes the government puts on ciggs that i should be able to smoke whenever and where i please ...as far as bothering someone else ...does anyone ever consider that maybe your perfume or your screaming kids may bother someone else as well ...i think i have the right to smoke and i will continue to ..i think the government has other things they should be worrying about and doing something other than who smokes where .....
|
kielkodw on 1/23/2008 6:36:36 PM wrote:
We moved from Roanoke to Naples, Fl ten years ago. During that period, Florida changed its laws from permitting smoking in places that sold alcohol and food to prohibiting smoking in all indoor establishments open to the public.
It is now a pleasure going out to eat. Never hear a complaint.
I noted in one of the posts to this forum that Montano's is now a smoke-free restaurant. Good for them!! Montano's used to be one of the worst culprits for an unavoidable smoke-filled environment, no matter where you sat.
The point is, even with smoking/non-smoking areas, you can't contain the smoke to one area.
Allowing or prohibiting smoking is not a matter of excess government intervention but rather of promoting public health.
|
Entropy on 1/23/2008 6:32:16 PM wrote:
TAJ, your analogy about drunk drivers and stopping serving alcohol is flawed. Not everyone who drinks at a restaurant drives home drunk. Some are passengers, and some may be responsible enough to know to have a single drink with dinner if they are driving.
Simply put, we have freedom of speech as long as its used responsibly (i.e. no shouting "fire" in a theater) Well you should have a freedom to smoke but not if it infringes on someone elses freedom to breathe clean air.
You right wing people who don't want "gov't telling you what to do" sure stick to your guns until it comes to abortion. Hypocrites.
|
TripleActionJones on 1/23/2008 4:06:25 PM wrote:
I hate to break it to you,float4days,but unless it's a private pool,probably every pool you've ever been in has urine in it.
To quote the old Palmolive lady - "You're soaking in it."
;)
Well,since we're at it, I would like to drive in the non drunk driver lane as well.
So let's stop serving alcoholic drinks in restaurants,too.
Also,from now on I'd like to be on the non-farting elevators as well.
I've had enough of people leaving their flatulence on elevators for me to walk into.
just trying to add some light-heartedness,folks....
ascaainsley - fair enough. It just surprises me people get so up in arms over this but I don't hear or see them doing the same over other issues that get discussed on here.
|
float4days on 1/23/2008 3:36:27 PM wrote:
We are for banning smoking in all public facilities.
It makes no sense to have smoking/nonsmoking sections in restaurants. What if you were asked for the peeing/nonpeeing section of the swimming pool?
All nonsmoking restaurants have our business...all others do not!
|
Justafan on 1/23/2008 2:49:41 PM wrote:
As stated previously, I am against smoking but also against the government overstepping it's bounds. Let the market place decide.
I hate being around smoke so I don't go to places where I have to be around it. I have been in establishments that have advanced ventilation systems that seem to take care of all the smoke. A few years ago I went into a "Gentleman's Club" in Myrtle Beach where they have special fans in the ceiling that sucked all of the smoke straight up. Usually those establishments are terribly smokey but this place seemed like a non-smoking bar. I'm sure this system wasn't cheap, but I'm also sure it helped bring in customers.
|
Walker on 1/23/2008 2:03:58 PM wrote:
Amen STRIPERS,
The next thing they will tell you is that you can't smoke in your own home. I am not PRO-smoking. I am for small government, no nanny state.
How do you all here like property taxes? Property you ALREADY paid for....that you have to pay taxes on, for what?
I also think the DEATH tax is BS also. Your Dad works his whole life, saves his money to help provide for his family, when he dies the guvmint takes half. Thats bull--it! But I am way off topic, sorry.
|
1950bing on 1/23/2008 1:29:39 PM wrote:
I have never been into a place that had a smoking section that really worked. Smoke drits and if walls only go up part way what is to keep the smoke from drifting? Some places must think that smoke will not go through lattice,please! I can be on the far side of the room and can tell when someone lights up in the " smoking section."
Want to smoke? Do it at home!
|
TripleActionJones on 1/23/2008 12:55:18 PM wrote:
Yeah,nice dodge....
Since when did people start adhering to only discussing the topic at hand in these forums?
If you look at a majority of the threads here,a lot of them end up deviating from the subject.
Or there are discussions which are extensions of the topic - such as what I brought up.
Not trying to be a jackass. I don't think anyone should have to be around cigarette smoke if they don't want to be.
And that's exactly why I think it's a private property issue, like others here have suggested as well.
|
ttmc_roanoke on 1/23/2008 12:36:48 PM wrote:
Just discussing the topic at hand TripleActionJones:
"Before the start of the 2008 session, Gov. Tim Kaine proposed legislation for a statewide ban on smoking in both public and private dining establishments.
Talk about the proposed ban and its chances for passage in the upcoming session"
|
TripleActionJones on 1/23/2008 11:58:43 AM wrote:
Where are all you zealots when it comes to industrial pollution?
Are you all actively outspoken against pollution in your air from industries? Or from car makers pushing out gas guzzling,air polluting V8's?
What about industries that pollute the water supplies with the chemicals they dump in rivers and oceans?
All of those types of pollutions harm you and your family greater than somebody smoking a cigarette near you.
Again,I used to smoke but am a non-smoker now,so I am not saying all of this in vain
Sure,mouth off about a guy smoking a cigarette while the companies around you pump the air and waters with pollution and you do nothing about it.
I'm just saying,think of the big picture.
I'm talking to a wall though probably...
|
cwbishop on 1/23/2008 11:38:43 AM wrote:
My brother lives in Florida which does not allow smoking in restaurants and on my visits to see him, I notice that the waiting lines are just as long as they are here. No smoking has not hurt their business at all. Virginia needs to think more about the health of its citizens and less about the tobacco money that all of the politicians are receiving!As far as I am concerned, a smokers rights end where my nose begins!
|
quincy1775 on 1/23/2008 11:13:42 AM wrote:
I also detest smoking and have a real problem with smokers and smoking restaurants. I tend to stay away from establishments that allow smoking, and will sit as far away from the smoking section as possible if I go to a place that allows it. Personally, I'd love the ban so I could be assured of being able to breath easier...but, I don't like big government. Rather, I'd prefer to see requirements for the ventilation and removal of smoke to be increased, and to have physical barriers between smoking and non-smoking sections required. That would still allow consumers a choice, but make it better for everyone around. Maybe that makes too much sense though for today's litigious and nanny-government state we live in.
|
iamjiwjr on 1/23/2008 10:54:02 AM wrote:
I hate smoking and I hate paying for others to smoke. I do not vote for anyone who believes they can take my life to make a tobacco buck. Morgan Griffith thus will never ever get my vote.
I have perfectly healthy 52yo lungs I have never smoked.
I can't go into the Waffle Hut anymore because my wife nor I can't breathe.
I can't go to the IHOP - even with a smoking section - because my wife nor I can't breathe.
I can go to Montano's now because they stopped smoking there.
If you want my money, mr or ms restauranteur, get rid of the toxic air. It's that simple.
It's more than a "live and let live" issue to me. Your personal rights end at the line when they violate mine - and vice versa. If I or you do that, then it's violence. That's wrong,
|
Travelguy on 1/23/2008 10:52:45 AM wrote:
Banning smoking is not a "liberal" issue, its a health issue. Even second hand smoke is dangerous to be around. When I see people in "smoking only" sections of restaurants puffing away I feel really sad for them. It seems as if nicotine has taken over their minds to prevent them from breaking their addiction. Smokers need help not scorn.
|
lancaster3 on 1/23/2008 10:45:29 AM wrote:
It's an easy situation. It should not be called a Ban first of all. It should be just a regulation, that bars or restaurants have a designated area,sealed off from the main dining area,for smokers.You would have to be 18 to enter.This way,smokers can eat,drink, smoke and non-smokers can enjoy the same good times,but not have to breathe smoke.I have see it here in Georgia since I moved here 4-5 years ago.My little bar has not been effected at all. If a bar or restaurant doesn't want to have an area sealed off, then they allow customers to go outside and take a smoke. If I wanted to smoke, there are plently of places I could go inside, but you have to be 18, and the bar area is seperate from the restaurant.
|
Walker on 1/23/2008 9:52:47 AM wrote:
"Imagine being a pregnant waitress or bartender and DECIDING VOLUNTARILY to go to work in a cloud of smoke everyday."
It's a private property issue, period.
I want to make clear one more time, smoking is stupid and deadly to those who smoke. But, this is way over-reaching by the government.
|
blz2dwl on 1/23/2008 9:37:33 AM wrote:
Opinioned:
You note that smoking causes 160,000 deaths through lung cancer, which is correct, but you miss the bigger picture. According the the CDC, smoking causes more than 400,000 premature deaths a year. Lung cancer is not the only negative of smoking. Heart disease, chronic airway obstruction, and a number of respiratory illnesses are also DIRECTLY attributable to smoking and second hand smoke.
It should be noted that these numbers are from 7 years ago, so we're actually looking at a HALF MILLION people who die each year due to smoking and second hand smoke.
In Europe, where smoking is actually more prevalent than in the US, most all countries have banned smoking in restaurants and pubs already.
Smoking kills. End of story.
B-
|
CharlesVA on 1/23/2008 9:22:40 AM wrote:
Imagine being a pregnant waitress or bartender and having to go to work in a cloud of smoke everyday.
|
ttmc_roanoke on 1/23/2008 8:52:29 AM wrote:
Choosing to smoke in a public restaurant is like choosing to blast a fog horn. It is annoying, obnoxious, and can cause damage to the people around you!
|
ChrisEllis on 1/23/2008 8:50:28 AM wrote:
I'm not a smoker, nor am I fond of smoking.
However, I have a problem with the Government telling private citizens how to run their businesses. If I owned a restaurant that had a smoking clientle, I'd be pretty mad at this proposal!
I patronize non-smoking restaurants, and restaurants that do a good job of segregating smokers away from non-smokers. I stopped going to some restaurants because of smoke.
I've seen some restaurants go "smoke-free" and do well. I've also seen a restaurant go "smoke-free" and then revert back to mixed. In both cases, the business owners and the marked dictated, not the g'ment.
I also propose that new restaurant hires be informed that they will be working in a smoke environment.
|
GeorgiaBoy on 1/23/2008 8:10:41 AM wrote:
sorry Cowboy...but Tobacco went the way of the dinosaur during the colonial days when 'cotton was king' and the industrial revolution took off.
|
Walker on 1/21/2008 5:20:28 PM wrote:
Another thing...how would you know what Rush Limbaugh says? Do you listen to him?
I actually work during the day, so I can't unfortunately, but I hear he is spot on!
|
Walker on 1/21/2008 5:17:20 PM wrote:
I meant "factual" scientific evidence there buddy. I wasn't referring to the bogus nonsense your prophet Al Gore passes off as gospel, which you apparently swallow happily, as it fits in perfect which your twisted world view.
A fact would be something like this: The earth has, in fact, been cooling since 1998.
Glad that I can provide an opportunity for education.
|
roenoke on 1/21/2008 4:14:29 PM wrote:
please stop name calling...its so juvenile
|
Entropy on 1/21/2008 4:08:28 PM wrote:
i dont know about your house opinioned, but when i bought mine, they DID do a radon check. (and it was above the recommended safe limit.)
However that's not anything I can control except by putting in a radon mitigation system. If I could install one of these in all the absolute MORONS that make the terrible decision to kill themselves slowly by smoking, I'd be more than happy to let themselves continue smoking in public. It only strengthens the gene pool when stupid people choose to smoke and kill themselves off. :)
|
roenoke on 1/21/2008 3:56:47 PM wrote:
Walker-
liberal twits always support their arguments with "scientific evidence". the second smoke argument is backed with scientific evidence, global warming argument is backed with scientific evidence...its neo-cons that support their arguements with bibles, faith and "the way it used ta be" (examples: gay marriage, abortion, creationism)
having been down this road with you before...you are the one that ignores scientific evidence and calls for "facts" and "proof"... for which there are none. so just like Rush you deny all evidence that is against your position by saying things like "there is no proof" or "give me atleast one fact"
its really getting old.
|
Walker on 1/21/2008 2:19:43 PM wrote:
Roenoke, your an idiot, as usual.
I'm never surprised when the idea of scientific evidence is dismissed as un-necessary by the liberal-twits on the left.
Rush agrees with ME, by the way.
|
roenoke on 1/18/2008 3:28:00 PM wrote:
Here we go again..."proof" how bout "facts"...
Walker(Rush) word games.
It would be a good argument but again Walker reverts to using the same word games he learns from Rush Limbaugh. Please Walker come up with your own material. You just keep repeating what you hear on GOP radio.
Its really sad the you can't think independent of talkshow dummies. Your programmed.
The funny thing is that Rush is listed by RJR as a media outlet to push its agenda. Yes Rush is patsy for big tobacco.
The funny thing is Walker is also a patsy for big tobacco because he repeats the rethoric without thinking for himself. Except he doesn't get paid like Rush.
|
Walker on 1/18/2008 12:36:43 PM wrote:
That's just silly. Second-hand smoke, a deadly weapon? There is no proof, period.
|
bikerjohn on 1/18/2008 9:43:20 AM wrote:
Assault with a deadly weapon? How do you feel about abortion? And why don't they outlaw bars?
|
herewegoagain on 1/17/2008 7:29:40 PM wrote:
Sorry, but assault with a deadly weapon is a primary issue!
That's what you're doing when you smoke around people who're not consenting adults. Smoking has to be regulated.
The trick is to get the politicians to do it properly, and not just cave in to the prohibitionists.
|
TripleActionJones on 1/15/2008 5:00:10 PM wrote:
I can sympathize with your sentiment.
With all that's going on in the country, this doesn't seem quite as urgent as unemployment,homelessness,AIDS and cancer,gas prices,jobs outsourced,crime,etc.,etc....
When we win some of those battles then we can focus on whether Joe Schmoe wants to light up around you in a restaurant.
Less focus on secondary issues,more focus on the primary ones.
|
steelrock73 on 1/15/2008 4:13:39 PM wrote:
Our jobs here in Virginia & the rest of the US are being shipped overseas,our borders are not being secured & illegals are coming into our country everyday(our troops ought to be here defending our own borders instead of iraqs),the price of gas is $3.00 + a gallon & expected to go higher,& all Tim Kaine worries about is people wanting to have a cigeratte after his of her meal.Our governor is a direct reflection of our "brain dead" politicians in DC.No wonder why this country is going all to pot.It sure isnt the land of the free anymore,the America Dream is sure lost!!!!!
|
1950bing on 1/15/2008 11:59:12 AM wrote:
God loves all people !
|
roenoke on 1/15/2008 10:49:40 AM wrote:
oh and for the record i like smokers more than fat people. gluttony is gross(and unchristian). God doesn't like fat people either.
|
roenoke on 1/15/2008 10:42:40 AM wrote:
maybe they could all start smoking (and get fat) too. than no one would impose smoking bans.
|
roenoke on 1/15/2008 10:41:06 AM wrote:
i wish all 50 million of those unwanted babies were running around now. that would be the great.
|
1950bing on 1/14/2008 1:14:43 PM wrote:
" casual murder of the unborn "
almost 50 million now !
|
boater on 1/14/2008 9:39:15 AM wrote:
As for the comparison between fat people and smokers, I think it was spot on. In fact, you can add to the fat people, people who wear too much perfume, eat too much garlic etc, etc.
The free market should determine this issue. End of story. For those who enjoy the government controlling every aspect of your life, this upcoming election and the democrats vying for the post should absolutely thrill you.
|
boater on 1/14/2008 9:33:05 AM wrote:
roenoke...are you an Anarchist?
|
Justafan on 1/14/2008 9:15:24 AM wrote:
Walker, I chose the wrong word, actually I don't believe in luck at all. But, I did not "Clearly miss your comparison". I got it. I just didn't care for it. I have several friends who are overweight and they are not "disgusting and they do not smell bad". I chalk it up to a poor choice of words on your part.
|
Walker on 1/12/2008 4:13:39 PM wrote:
I think we agree on more than you think. I don't want the government really involved in any of it. With abortion, it says more about our culture as a whole, than our government. We are a culture of comvenience.
People have been having or causing abortions through-out time, that doesn't make it right. It is just FAR easier to make the wrong decision now that it's legal and accepted to some extent.
I will abide by the law regardless of whether I agree with it or not. Obviously, there are a few laws I don't agree with. Someone mentioned it earlier, but the seatbelt law is ridiculous as well.
School buses? Motorcycles?
|
roenoke on 1/12/2008 1:17:28 PM wrote:
But its only illegal cause the guvmint says it is and I don't need the guvmint telling me what to do.
It harms no one yet it's illegal? Unjust law? Are we morally obliged to obey unjust laws?
Where does it end?
What do you want and not want the government control? Restaurants? Schools? Doctors offices? Operating rooms? Gardens? Phone records? Prayer? Alcohol Sales?
|
Walker on 1/12/2008 12:12:24 PM wrote:
Justafan,
You clearly missed my comparison altogether. No need to re-hash. However, I will point out that it isn't "luck" that determines whether one is fat or not.
Roenoke, I think I know your stance on just about everything. Obviously, we disagree on the casual murder of the unborn. But, it's a crazy world and the act is oddly still legal.
Growing anything that's illegal on your own property, I don't agree with. While I don't see much difference between adults drinking and adults smoking pot, it's still illegal.
Who knows, maybe if the George Soros funded Democrat nominee gets elected, you might get to use tree trimmers to cut the spines of kids that are even as old as one, while stoned out of your gourd. You can always dream, right?
|
roenoke on 1/12/2008 11:37:46 AM wrote:
i agree that the "guvmint" shouldn't tell anyone what to do. whether its smoking at a bar or getting an abortion, smoking on your own property or growing marijuana on your own property. they shouldn't have the right to restrict private and personal decisions.
|
Justafan on 1/11/2008 4:40:36 PM wrote:
"walker" If you'll check my earlier posting, I stated that while I hate being around smokers, I also don't want the guvmint telling folks what they can and can't do as long as it's legal.
Also, While I'm lucky and do not have a weight problem, I don't tolerate discrimination of those who do just as you don't like discrimination of smokers.
|
bikerjohn on 1/10/2008 5:12:33 PM wrote:
There is never a shortage of folks who want to force their personal preferences on others. What about alcohol 1950? Would you make it illegal anywhere but in your own home? Does secondhand smoke kill? How about drunk drivers? Hey you anti gun nuts - hows about we just pass a law making killing someone illegal instead of infringing on my Constitutional rights? Oh, that's right, the laws are no deterrent (for the anti-capital punishment crowd).
And while we're at it, let's make those smelly perfume-wearing womens illegal as well - they stink.
You can't have it both ways.
|
Walker on 1/10/2008 12:26:33 PM wrote:
Totally agree TAJ. I don't need the gubmint telling me what kind of people I can allow in my establishment or what they can (legally) do while there. Period.
If you don't want to go to the Brambleton Deli or Community Inn (two of the smokiest places Ive ever been) because of the smoke, don't go. Go to Annie Moore's.
Justafan, I'm sorry if you have a weight problem. I'd suggest eating in more. My earlier post was a silly illustration or comparison of the issue at hand. Sorry to offend.
Public place = the library, park, etc.
Private establishment = Community Inn, Annie Moore's, etc.
It's simple, let the market decide. This is a perfect example of the vocal minority trying to inflict their personal beliefs on others.
|
Justafan on 1/9/2008 4:17:07 PM wrote:
Gee "Walker". Nothing about you that some people may not like? That's sarcasm by the way. Sounds like to me you suffer from Cranial Rectosis, but I won't discriminate against you for that. But I do advise you to seek help for it.
|
1950bing on 1/9/2008 11:37:23 AM wrote:
Smoke in your house.OK
Smoke in your car. OK
Smoke outside. Not OK, it will drift.
Smoke around others inside. Not OK. it will drift.
|
TripleActionJones on 1/9/2008 11:21:54 AM wrote:
I'm all for each restuarant/bar owner deciding what they do and don't want in their place of business.
If it were an illegal activity I'd of course have no problem with the ban.
But it's legal,and what gets me the most is that the state is who gets all the money from the tobacco tax!
It's been said before, but let the public decide what restuarants/bars they choose to frequent. If non-smokers don't want to be around smoke,they'll choose non-smoking establishments or designated sections of a place(and yes I realize some places don't do a great job with that). If smokers want to smoke, they'll avoid those places that don't allow it.
An owner will do what he can to attract customers.
I say all of this as a former cigarette smoker.
|
Walker on 1/9/2008 10:12:04 AM wrote:
Fat people are disgusting and can smell really bad as well. I think the government should regulate how much food they are given so I don't have to look at them or smell them.
|
justsomeguy on 1/8/2008 11:47:44 PM wrote:
Hm. I seem to recall a Republican pushing something similar last year. He said he'd let the voters decide if he was right or wrong. How'd that work out for you, (former) Senator Bell?
|
tigerlilly on 1/8/2008 10:06:50 PM wrote:
Do smokers realize how bad they stink after they smoke? I say the FDA should regulate the stinking habit. It is an addiction.
|
Justafan on 1/8/2008 3:58:53 PM wrote:
As much as I hate to be around people who smoke, I also hate the government controlling too much of our lives. Some restaurants, like Annie Moore's Irish Pub are totally smoke free. Their food and beverages are great and the fact that it is smoke free adds to my enjoyment. They seem to be successful and maybe this will give other establishments the courage to go smoke free as well. Some restaurants do a good job separating the smoking and non-smoking sections. Others separate the two sections with a four foot aisle, believing the smoke will not cross the space. I don't return to those places. If they're that dumb, what are they doing with my food?
|
Walker on 1/8/2008 3:22:49 PM wrote:
I could really care less either way, but the real point of this deals with private property.
If I own a business, I can do WHATEVER I want in regards to smoking. Smoking is legal. If someone doesn't want to eat there, go somewhere else.
If someone doesn't want to work there, fine.
That's the true issue, property rights.
|
roenoke on 1/8/2008 9:47:35 AM wrote:
"What about workers who have to go outside to smoke, in all kinds of weather?"
Thats a choice. No one has to smoke.
|
herewegoagain on 1/8/2008 7:27:13 AM wrote:
The politicians are determined to demagog the smoking issue to death. Some cater to people who want to smoke anywhere they please, no matter who they hurt, and the rest cater to the domineering busybodies who want to make us all quit. None of the laws proposed address the real issues involved. If smoking in restaurants is bad, it's just as bad in other indoor places. "Protection" for workers and diners? What about workers who have to go outside to smoke, in all kinds of weather? What about diners who like to light up after a meal? Post a "permitted" sign at the door? What about a nonsmoker who looks up a restaurant in the yellow pages, and doesn't know it's a smoker until they travel there? If private clubs, what's the next agenda?
|
ralph1937 on 1/7/2008 6:56:16 PM wrote:
A lot of people are not going to like this but I say GOOD FOR HIM.
Ralph B. Coleman
|
