COUNTDOWN TO STATE SMOKING BAN Clouds of confusion Tobacco shop...

As usual, our wonderful commonwealth government passed and signed a law that nobody understands. Ah well , e faw less lawyers and maybe we can get laws passed that we , the ordinary citizens who pay the bills, will understand.

This piece of legislation must have been outsourced to another country where they have no idea of what freedom is...

although this legislation is kind of sketchy, I am glad they're making steps in the right directions.

for all these bar, club, and restaurant owners who are concerned they are going to lose all their patrons, just think of how many people currently avoid your establishment because of the smoke-filled air. as with many things that change, the only "uproar" you'll hear is by those people with something to lose, so all the smokers complaining is what you're hearing much of now.

Like mentioned above, croc rock is one of those places that myself and dozens of people I know avoid, because you come out stinking like absolute hell, with spackle like crud in your sinuses, and your lungs burning. The air quality in that place on a popular show night would have to be lethal if you breathed just that for 24 hours straight.

And all the restaurants who have smoking and non smoking sections right next to each other, that too is ludicrous. You can't segregate the air with a sign.

Smoking is obsolete, period.

No Way wrote:

This piece of legislation must have been outsourced to another country where they have no idea of what freedom is...

where in the constitution does it say you have the freedom to ruin my air too, and do damage to my lungs?

I 100% agree that this is a slippery slope sort of argument, but one man's freedoms should not be at the expense of others.

smoke all you want in your own home.

From article, "Jeanne Fignar, policy and research coordinator for the Partnership for Tobacco Free Northeast Pennsylvania, said surveys show about 60 percent of the Lehigh Valley's eateries already ban smoking."

So if 3 to 4 out 5 places are already smoke-free, why do we need a law? Free enterprise has moved that way. Why not allow the small percentage of business owners who choose to allow smoking their freedom to so?

Smoking is someones personal choice, which I have no problem with as long as it doesn't effect me.

But when I end up sucking down 1/2 a pack of second hand smoke I appreciate these laws.

Just the government eroding more of our rights. It should be up to the establishment's own to decided what he/she does with his/her establishment. The government has no right to interfere in a private citizen's business!

Non-smoker, you're an idiot. Do you want the government telling you what you can and can't eat next? Perhaps then they'll tell you what you can and can't think. Giving away rights is never a good thing moron. If you don't like the smoke, stay home with your tear soaked crying pillow.

non-smoker wrote:

although this legislation is kind of sketchy, I am glad they're making steps in the right directions.
for all these bar, club, and restaurant owners who are concerned they are going to lose all their patrons, just think of how many people currently avoid your establishment because of the smoke-filled air. as with many things that change, the only "uproar" you'll hear is by those people with something to lose, so all the smokers complaining is what you're hearing much of now.
Like mentioned above, croc rock is one of those places that myself and dozens of people I know avoid, because you come out stinking like absolute hell, with spackle like crud in your sinuses, and your lungs burning. The air quality in that place on a popular show night would have to be lethal if you breathed just that for 24 hours straight.
And all the restaurants who have smoking and non smoking sections right next to each other, that too is ludicrous. You can't segregate the air with a sign.
Smoking is obsolete, period.

I can respect people who can not withstand smoking, and separate sections within the same building does not appease that concern: But, separate establishments providing the CHOICE to enter into a nonmsoking OR smoking environment would provide EQUAL enjoyment of one's time in their own way.

Intolerance and discrimination is what SHOULD be obsolete: period.

*to decide

non-smoker wrote:

<quoted text>
where in the constitution does it say you have the freedom to ruin my air too, and do damage to my lungs?
I 100% agree that this is a slippery slope sort of argument, but one man's freedoms should not be at the expense of others.
smoke all you want in your own home.

Wrong... smoke all you want with the business owners permission. You might want to consider staying home or stay out of businesses that permits smoking.

Nick Naylor wrote:

From article, "Jeanne Fignar, policy and research coordinator for the Partnership for Tobacco Free Northeast Pennsylvania, said surveys show about 60 percent of the Lehigh Valley's eateries already ban smoking."
So if 3 to 4 out 5 places are already smoke-free, why do we need a law? Free enterprise has moved that way. Why not allow the small percentage of business owners who choose to allow smoking their freedom to so?

Well that would be ummmm...what are the words I am looking for....oh yeah, FREEDOM OF CHOICE! What in the world would we want that for? Who will tell us where to eat and what to wear? We can't have free thinking people running around.

BleuJei wrote:

<quoted text>
I can respect people who can not withstand smoking, and separate sections within the same building does not appease that concern: But, separate establishments providing the CHOICE to enter into a nonmsoking OR smoking environment would provide EQUAL enjoyment of one's time in their own way.
Intolerance and discrimination is what SHOULD be obsolete: period.

Antis either don't want to admit separate facilities takes care of the SHS issue or they just like controlling others. The bottom line is antis, at least wrt bars, have NO reason to expect 100% of bars to be smoke free.

slowly but surely our rights are going up in smoke. everyone better read 1984, thats where we are headed.

oh yea crotch rott is stupid, who cares if that dump is smoke free or not.

smoker wrote:

Non-smoker, you're an idiot. Do you want the government telling you what you can and can't eat next? Perhaps then they'll tell you what you can and can't think. Giving away rights is never a good thing moron. If you don't like the smoke, stay home with your tear soaked crying pillow.

what i eat or think doesn't impact the health of the people around me stupid. it's not a valid comparison, period. find one other example of something totally unregulated in society that you can do that impacts the health and well being of those around you. there aren't any.

i think i'll do you a favor and mail you my pillow so you can use it when you're bed-ridden at 60 with emphesema and lung cancer.

its actually been proven that second hand smoke is no more dangerous than breathing normal air. the government telling people were to smoke is just a first step. soon, we wont be able to think for ourselves, and at that point, i dont want to think what our country will be like. if you cant smoke in a public space, how long until my neighbor calls the cops because im in my back yard smoking? where doues it end?

i should also clarify one thing, before I get further attacked on it. I am fully in support of letting smaller restaurant, bar, and club owners choose whether or not they want to allow smoking at all.

As for larger establishments, I'm not opposed to a smoking area in the building, provided it's a separate room with ventilation and it's behind closed doors.

Bottom line, I just want to be able to avoid smoke if I choose to, and for those people that are calling foul on freedom of choice, there's every bit as much argument on the other side of the fence there too. Suppose I want to go see a band play at croc rock. My choice right now is go, and suffer lung problems and sinus effects for the next 24-48 hours afer the concert or stay home. And that rules out all but those acts I'm most hardcore about.

using the example of croc rock again - in the large main stage room, smoking should not be allowed in my opinion. but if the downstairs or front bar area allowed smoking and there were closed doors between and it was ventilated, not a problem.

As I said in my first comment, this law is sketchy. But there seem to be little people in the middle, it's all extremists on both sides of the argument.

non-smoker wrote:

<quoted text>
what i eat or think doesn't impact the health of the people around me stupid. it's not a valid comparison, period. find one other example of something totally unregulated in society that you can do that impacts the health and well being of those around you. there aren't any.
i think i'll do you a favor and mail you my pillow so you can use it when you're bed-ridden at 60 with emphesema and lung cancer.

What about discrimination? The establishments that do not allow me to smoke are discriminating against me because I do. Also, this law is a discriminating one because the law is directed only at smokers. If I had the money, I would sue the State of Pennsylvania for discrimination and win because this law is blatent discrimination.

Would be interested in links to the research proving that SHS is not dangerous. There are a number of scientific studies showing that SHS is dangerous, it would be interesting to compare with scientific studies showing SHS is not dangerous.

Paul from Allentown wrote:

its actually been proven that second hand smoke is no more dangerous than breathing normal air. the government telling people were to smoke is just a first step. soon, we wont be able to think for ourselves, and at that point, i dont want to think what our country will be like. if you cant smoke in a public space, how long until my neighbor calls the cops because im in my back yard smoking? where doues it end?

non-smoker wrote:

i should also clarify one thing, before I get further attacked on it. I am fully in support of letting smaller restaurant, bar, and club owners choose whether or not they want to allow smoking at all.
As for larger establishments, I'm not opposed to a smoking area in the building, provided it's a separate room with ventilation and it's behind closed doors.
Bottom line, I just want to be able to avoid smoke if I choose to, and for those people that are calling foul on freedom of choice, there's every bit as much argument on the other side of the fence there too. Suppose I want to go see a band play at croc rock. My choice right now is go, and suffer lung problems and sinus effects for the next 24-48 hours afer the concert or stay home. And that rules out all but those acts I'm most hardcore about.
using the example of croc rock again - in the large main stage room, smoking should not be allowed in my opinion. but if the downstairs or front bar area allowed smoking and there were closed doors between and it was ventilated, not a problem.
As I said in my first comment, this law is sketchy. But there seem to be little people in the middle, it's all extremists on both sides of the argument.

Your croc rock arqument is laughable whiner. Yes it comes down to choice. If the bar owner wants to allow smoking, then that's how it should be. If you want to live in your bubble and see the band smoke free, then wait for them to do a show somewhere else where the owner decided it should be smoke free. The government shouldn't regulate that choice as long as selling tobacco is legal. So your prissy desire to get everything your way is infringing on my rights.