Patio smoking ban under attack

I'm not sure what I think of this one. I sympathize with the reversal on permitting smoking on these patios, and particularly the ones that were built specifically to permit smoking under the earlier regulation.

At the same time, I suspect that a lot of places that already had such patios and could otherwise have offered outdoor seating for nonsmokers probably aren't offering it because they are using the space to attract smokers' money.

To the extent that the patios are close to major walkways essential to nonsmokers' ability to get around the areas, I don't think smoking should be allowed there.

However, for that to be "fair", there would need to be other options for smoking, since most smokers are not well able to go for long periods without indulging in their habit.

Unless and until something comes along that genuinely addresses the addiction and returns true freedom of choice to smokers, this step would be a hard sell for me. The law about cars with children is a definite must in my book, and I think the sidewalks themselves should be nonsmoking. Still, once they get to where they will be there ought to be some option for them.

Here it is black and white.!
"We made the investment to cover off the smoking issue by building decks and having them outdoors and having our patrons having to go outside, so that should be enough,"

Now the non smokers want to infringe on the smokers rights !!!!

Yeah, there is that issue.

Personally, I hope that one or more of the vaccines they are testing now will be able to help the estimated 70% or more of smokers who WANT to quit. Once that happens--and if the same products can successfully help reduce recruitment among teenagers--I think the amount of voting smokers' money will do should become negligible and the remodels will be useful nonsmoking space for almost everyone. Former smokers will have that much more "disposable income".

discusseded wrote:

Yeah, there is that issue.
Personally, I hope that one or more of the vaccines they are testing now will be able to help the estimated 70% or more of smokers who WANT to quit. Once that happens--and if the same products can successfully help reduce recruitment among teenagers--I think the amount of voting smokers' money will do should become negligible and the remodels will be useful nonsmoking space for almost everyone. Former smokers will have that much more "disposable income".

Why do all of the numbers that you keep using seem to be 70-80 percent? Sorry, but I don't that many smokers WANT to quit. I think that most smokers that are quitting are not doing so by choice and are pretty po'ed about it.

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>Why do all of the numbers that you keep using seem to be 70-80 percent? Sorry, but I don't that many smokers WANT to quit. I think that most smokers that are quitting are not doing so by choice and are pretty po'ed about it.

That's so true; the #1 enforcer most likely being FSC cigarettes.

Mazed wrote:

I'm not sure what I think of this one. I sympathize with the reversal on permitting smoking on these patios, and particularly the ones that were built specifically to permit smoking under the earlier regulation.
At the same time, I suspect that a lot of places that already had such patios and could otherwise have offered outdoor seating for nonsmokers probably aren't offering it because they are using the space to attract smokers' money.
To the extent that the patios are close to major walkways essential to nonsmokers' ability to get around the areas, I don't think smoking should be allowed there.
However, for that to be "fair", there would need to be other options for smoking, since most smokers are not well able to go for long periods without indulging in their habit.
Unless and until something comes along that genuinely addresses the addiction and returns true freedom of choice to smokers, this step would be a hard sell for me. The law about cars with children is a definite must in my book, and I think the sidewalks themselves should be nonsmoking. Still, once they get to where they will be there ought to be some option for them.

Good options might be out back by the dumpster, or down under the bridge.:~)

a little wisdom please wrote:

<quoted text>
That's so true; the #1 enforcer most likely being FSC cigarettes.

Fire safe Cigs "FSC" are to protect non-smokers from drunk & degenerat low class smokers who leave burning cigs butts when they pass out, or when they or their ilk chuck still burning cig butts. PS/ Where the hecks my new thread, you lazy, nicotine addicted & enslaved smoker? Yes I know your (YOU) kind)>>;~]

just candid wrote:

<quoted text> Good options might be out back by the dumpster, or down under the bridge.:~)

Narcissism at its best.! its only all about you and yours.!

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>Why do all of the numbers that you keep using seem to be 70-80 percent? Sorry, but I don't that many smokers WANT to quit. I think that most smokers that are quitting are not doing so by choice and are pretty po'ed about it.

Check surveys. Find statistics. EVERY reference I've run into puts the numbers in that range (or higher--but those I disregard as "outliers").

The overwhelming majority of people who smoke smoke because they were unable to quit when--after choosing NOT to be smokers--they tried. Tobacco industry tactics 101--hook 'em and bleed 'em till they die, and meanwhile sucker some kids in to keep up the line.

There's a much-distributed industry quote about children beginning to try to quit "even earlier now". It suggests that before they get out of high school a significant number of smokers have tried to escape the addiction.

Don't kid yourself that the "lie back and enjoy it" mentality will survive a really successful method of quitting for good.

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
Check surveys. Find statistics. EVERY reference I've run into puts the numbers in that range (or higher--but those I disregard as "outliers").
The overwhelming majority of people who smoke smoke because they were unable to quit when--after choosing NOT to be smokers--they tried. Tobacco industry tactics 101--hook 'em and bleed 'em till they die, and meanwhile sucker some kids in to keep up the line.
There's a much-distributed industry quote about children beginning to try to quit "even earlier now". It suggests that before they get out of high school a significant number of smokers have tried to escape the addiction.
Don't kid yourself that the "lie back and enjoy it" mentality will survive a really successful method of quitting for good.

Now Im not tryig to get on anyone here. But just think what would happen to your state my state and everyone state if they found a cure to make it easy to quit smoking.? Let alone all those poor children who have no health care blah blah blah/bull$hit. Now if you non smokers havent figured it out yet, it wouldnt be to your advantage to have all of us guit or have tobacco banned completely. It would cost you a small fortune.! My point being you need us, but we dont need you.!

This hype is leading up to stage two of the ban frenzy. They are now following page seven of the tobacco control handbook instructions to ban patio smoking AFTER business owners spent thousands of dollars to build them for their smoking customers. This clearly shows that these people have ABSOLUTLY NO CONCERN for local businesses. It's the "inside-out" provision on page seven. Now that these lobbyists found gullible lawmakers and got a foot in the door, there's no stopping them.

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals....

Notice that there's no mention of patios in the model "smoking ban for dummies" on page eight. They didn't want that to be seen when the bans were first brought up.

http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php...

I'd say that wanting local businesses to be able to save significant chunks of money on cleaning and insurance costs should count for something.

Besides, what busy restaurant wants to turn customers away or seat them in less comfortable sections because some selfish, addiction-driven smoker wants to go through a couple of smokes before he budges his butt?

The anti-regulationists don't care much for anything but the convenience of their fix. If the government weren't daunted by the prospect of tens of millions of addicts doing synchronized withdrawals, we could have gone directly to outlawing smoking instead of having to press for incremental progress.

They should bar smokers from voting on these issues, as addicts are by definition unable to bring a rational sense of proportion to issues relating to their substance of abuse.

We DON'T need our decisions being made by pathologies.

generalsn1234567 wrote:

This hype is leading up to stage two of the ban frenzy. They are now following page seven of the tobacco control handbook instructions to ban patio smoking AFTER business owners spent thousands of dollars to build them for their smoking customers. This clearly shows that these people have ABSOLUTLY NO CONCERN for local businesses. It's the "inside-out" provision on page seven. Now that these lobbyists found gullible lawmakers and got a foot in the door, there's no stopping them.
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals....
Notice that there's no mention of patios in the model "smoking ban for dummies" on page eight. They didn't want that to be seen when the bans were first brought up.
http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php...

These people always seem a book to memorize for all those one-liners they throw. Is your source the same as this http://strategyguides.globalink.org/guide01_1...

discusseded wrote:

I'd say that wanting local businesses to be able to save significant chunks of money on cleaning and insurance costs should count for something.
Besides, what busy restaurant wants to turn customers away or seat them in less comfortable sections because some selfish, addiction-driven smoker wants to go through a couple of smokes before he budges his butt?
The anti-regulationists don't care much for anything but the convenience of their fix. If the government weren't daunted by the prospect of tens of millions of addicts doing synchronized withdrawals, we could have gone directly to outlawing smoking instead of having to press for incremental progress.
They should bar smokers from voting on these issues, as addicts are by definition unable to bring a rational sense of proportion to issues relating to their substance of abuse.
We DON'T need our decisions being made by pathologies.

I believe the refusal of the right to vote to any group of people has pretty much been covered by the 15th and 19th ammendments.

First they forced the smokers outdoors.

When the were outdoors...they complained they were outdoors.

Next they came for the overweight...for those who are not blind.

Now they are coming for the pop drinkers and the meat eaters.

Who can defend the bacon eater?

They have placed their carnal desires above the common good of all the insured.

They too...must be modified.

First they came for the smokers...

Hind sight is 20/20. If back in the day smoking bans had been lobbied correctly this wouldn't be an issue.

Correctly you ask? Correctly would have been allowing establishments to offer smoking INSIDE while not allowing it on the streets!

Could you imagine how many fewer cigarette butts would be littering the roads... not to mention we wouldn't have business owners and smokers up in arms that their rights are being taken AND non-smokers wouldn't have to deal with a smoker if they didn't want to?

It's so sad how EASY the answer is. But unfortunately, we have totally lost sight of everything... including public health.

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe the refusal of the right to vote to any group of people has pretty much been covered by the 15th and 19th ammendments.

Representatives of the public--including judges--are often required to recuse themselves from specific issues if there is cause related to that specific issue. Addiction creates such a cause with regard to the substance of abuse.

It is inexcusable to permit a pathology to interfere with a representative's responsiveness to the wishes and /or the best interests of their constituents. Addicts should not have power over regulation of the object of their addiction. A public servant who is not of sound mind should not be making decisions.

Find something in the amendment(s) to dispute that if you can.

LaceyUnderall wrote:

Hind sight is 20/20. If back in the day smoking bans had been lobbied correctly this wouldn't be an issue.
Correctly you ask? Correctly would have been allowing establishments to offer smoking INSIDE while not allowing it on the streets!
Could you imagine how many fewer cigarette butts would be littering the roads... not to mention we wouldn't have business owners and smokers up in arms that their rights are being taken AND non-smokers wouldn't have to deal with a smoker if they didn't want to?
It's so sad how EASY the answer is. But unfortunately, we have totally lost sight of everything... including public health.

I would agree with the proviso that "inside" be applied only to a representative portion of indoor venues. Also, at the beginning of the public movement toward restrictions, alternative sources of nicotine were not so readily available and asking addicts to deal with withdrawals all the time they were outside would not have been humane.

It is a different world, though, and smokers no longer have a persuasive whine. So, now they scream and shriek and say they are all about the poor businessman. Meanwhile, they continue to disregard regulations and smoke in restricted venues "in solidarity with the owners", thus ensuring that the venues remain unacceptable to a large segment of the 80% of the population that does NOT smoke ANYWHERE.

Of course, they will tell you that it is the lack of legal smoking rather than the presence of illegal smoking that is the problem.

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
It is inexcusable to permit a pathology to interfere with a representative's responsiveness to the wishes and /or the best interests of their constituents. Addicts should not have power over regulation of the object of their addiction. A public servant who is not of sound mind should not be making decisions.

So what about the representative who has a food addiction or a shopping addiction or a sex addiction or a caffeine addiction? What happens if smoking is eradicated and we go full force after these other "addictions"... which is already beginning to happen.

Who will be able to run for office then? ;)

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
thus ensuring that the venues remain unacceptable to a large segment of the 80% of the population that does NOT smoke ANYWHERE.

I would also argue that this is the ROOT of the smoking problem... this idea that because one does not engage in a certain action, then therefor, their rights become more important than those who do.

Drinking alcohol is acceptable in certain places... why should smoking not be the same?