Chipping away at rights...

[WalkingWolf]

I am a non smoker and agree with the OP 100%, as many non smokers demanding somebody else rights be stepped on sounds like good business ventures being missed. It is time government stop making lifestyle or healthy choices for us. Almost all restaurant had smoking and non smoking areas. As far as bars this is just silly. Nobody is forcing anyone to go to a smoking bar, nobody forces anyone to sit in a smoking section in a restaurant. Let me make this perfectly clear, not only am I a non smoker I have NEVER smoked, but it annoys me that rights are being chipped away because some are offended. Also the OP was talking about bars not restaurants and alcohol is not good for you either, or all the salt in nuts.

BTW when in a restaurant should ask if they cook with aluminum, it has been linked to Alzheimer's. Make sure they do not use peanut oil as it can kill MUCH faster than second hand smoke. People probably should be checked for lice before being allowed in. And extremely ugly people not allowed as it might affect one's appetite. And how about all those screaming brats that are allowed to run loose, could cause a heart attack. Sorry I am not trying to offend but just think of how far government can go to choose YOUR life for you. A non smoking ban might not affect you but sooner or later something else will.

 

[Judy]

Quote:

I am a smoker, and frankly I cold care less that I am no longer allowed to smoke in most any building, be it store, restaurant, bar or whatever. I do remember smoking in theaters, stores, and work places, and expecting to be permitted to smoke in anyone's house or car. That was a LONG time ago. I have adjusted, and have no problem with that. I used to stomp on a lit cigarette wherever I was standing; now I get annoyed with seeing stomped cigarette butts. I understand these changes and have revised my thinking. Don't see what is so hard about that.

But to me the point is still that our legislators have chosen to make this stuff law. I find it terrifying that the public feels law should govern such areas. I do not want government looking at what guns I own, what outbuildings I choose to build, whether I have any animals on my property, or which animals I choose to eat, much less whether a bar chooses to be smoking or nonsmoking.

For example. I think we can have laws against animal abuse, without making it illegal to eat something like horses or dogs, which are routinely eaten in certain cultures. I just do not understand how such laws are tolerated in this supposedly free society. I would not want to eat a dog, but why does that make it ok for legislators to prevent me from doing so? Is there some basic difference between eating a dog and eating a cow or pig?

This forum has many members who will not eat their chickens, and many others who do so routinely. We seem to survive this difference.
My point has nothing to do with whether I think you should eat chicken -- I don't -- that is your choice. It has to do with whether you really want your government involved in this choice.

I actually feel this has gotten so out of hand that I would not be surprised to see laws limiting consumption of sugar and saturated fats. We are already on our way; look at schools. You make jokes about ice cream, but it is coming down the pike.

In my lifetime, I have seen the pendulum swing much farther than I expected toward public appreciation of ways to preserve life on this planet, and suspicion of commercial poisons. Wish I could say the same about personal liberty.

 

[yotetrapper]

wow ya'll been busy since I made this post this afternoon before work. I'm glad to see most of you saw my point, which was much more than a rant about not being able to smoke in bars. Sure, I miss going on my weekly outing, it was the only time I get away from work and home. But I'll live. I'm smoking a cigarette and drinking a cold beer right now before I head to bed. The business owners got the shortest end of the stick here, in the short run.

Which brings up a point. A man in Burlington IA owns a bar called Otis Campbells. He is a NON-smoker. He refused to stop smoking in his establishment. They revoked his liquor license, but he still has the restaurant part opened, and still allows smoking. He is using his own money and taking this issue to the supreme court. Remember, he does not smoke. He is doing this because he believes this law infringes on our rights, and is not constitutional.

Which is the point of this post. I can live with not smoking in bars. But I can not live with the government deciding what I can and can not do. Have you heard they are banning children's books written before 1970-something? what next?

Should they make it illegal to drive to bars? Because all those cars in the parking lot need to get home sometime, and they could very well kill you in the process. Okay, so if we don't allow cars to drive to bars, maybe we should equip all cars with a scrambler of some sort that doesn't allow cell phones to work in cars, because in my opinion, someone texting when driving is every bit as dangerous as a drunk driver, and a heckuva lot more dangerous than a smoker. When does it stop???


Maybe the Burger King analogy (or the ice cream one) would be more in line with seat belt laws than with the smoking issue. How can a government make it illegal for me to drive without a seat belt...when it's for my OWN good?? shouldnt that be my decision? How can they require me to where a helmet on a motorcycle? If they can do that they sure can make it illegal for me to eat that 900 calories BK Tender Crisp sandwhich.

This isn't about smoking. This is about our freedoms that we are losing more of everyday. Instead of allowing issues like this to be regulated by the business owners (in the smoking case) or ME in the seat belt case, it is instead made illegal by government. Well I've had enough of it!

 

[gypsy2621]

NH never had a seat belt law like most other states, yesterday on the news they were saying the bill is being voted on this week I believe, to implement a seat belt law on the books.
again taking away my right not to feel claustrophobic, my rights not to induce a panic attack. but because this law will eventually be brought to tow, I have to endure someone else's wishes and create a traffic hazard from being confined , locked into place with no escape.

All these new and old regulations remind me of the Silvester Stallone/ Sandra Bullock movie .
he woke up from the deep freeze to find out all rights had been removed, right down to being fined for using a mild cuss word.

Its scarey how some Movies hit on certain subjects years before they become a sure reality.

 

[erinm]

I used to be a smoker and I loved it but I have to agree that noone should have to be subjected to secondhand smoke at whatever restaur. they choose to visit. people don't choose to have asthma or lung cancer,not always because of smoking and they should not have to worry about having an asthma attack when out for a night on the town. Erinm

 

[WalkingWolf]

Quote:
I have never been in a restaurant that did not have a smoking and non smoking section. And then there is always the option to go somewhere else. There are no laws YET stating you can not enter a restaurant if you are sick and I find the unnecessary spreading of disease much more annoying than a smoker way off in the corner.

The only places I have been exposed to second hand smoke is in bars and bowling alleys and even bowling alleys do not allow smoking on the lanes. This has nothing to do with second hand smoke this has to do with a agenda of one group pushing their values and beliefs on another.

Let me make this clear I find smoking disgusting, but I find tyranny unacceptable. The same ones who push for anti smoking are usually the same ones that decide what kind of mail box you should have.

 

[gypsy2621]

Quote:
what about people with asthma who when standing in line at a restraunt and a man or woman comes in bathed in some sort of perfume?
I was with a friend who is an asthmatic in the check out line at walmart, some woman came in line behind us who reaked of perfume, My poor friend was on the floor in a very short period of time unable to draw a good breath.
Her inahler couldnt help, she was rushed by ambulance to the nearest hospital.
I dont see anyone taking away anyones rights to bathe in perfume, hair spray, cologne, or any other asthma inducing products.

as the original poster pointed ot this isnt so much about smoking as it is the rights that are being taken away.
personally anyone who bathes in perfume needs to have that right taken away for the betterment of those they may encounter.

This is basically becoming and apple and oranges debate. I dont think anyone is going to agree on this subject.

 

[Chickenmaven]

Quote:
Ditto. It is pretty sad that you are so addicted that you cannot NOT smoke for a couple of hours. BTW: My mom is dying from COPD, is on oxygen & still smokes. Cigarettes are a substance, not a hobby.

 

[HarlansHollowFarms]

Many people here are making this argument about your right to smoke where you chose, I think the bigger argument is allowing the government to dictate to bussiness owners whether they should allow smoking or not. Would it not be prudent to allow bussinesses to make their own decissions? If everyone chose to patronize the non-smoking establisments then the smoking establisments would eventually go out of bussiness.
We have personal choice here, we do not have to patronize places that allow smoking or anything else we may find offensive or unhealthy. Personally, I do not smoke, but I would rather sit by smokers in a restraunt and breath bad air then to sit by unrully children makeing my blood pressure rise. No offense to anyone of course, just my opinion. Since I have choices though, I chose to do neither!
The point I am trying to make is, we already have the freedom to chose which businesses we patronize and work for, why do we need goverment to tell us what to do? Simple answer, is we don't.

 

[yotetrapper]

<<The point I am trying to make is, we already have the freedom to chose which businesses we patronize and work for, why do we need goverment to tell us what to do? >>

Exactly!

I just wanted to take a second to thank everyone involved with this thread for keeping it civil so that it survived for everyone who wanted to comment on it.