Why don't we just make smoking illegal?

Drew wrote:

<quoted text> It's amazing how you claim to be a victim of others' behavior yet you take no responsibility for your own actions. If you choose to patronize a bar or restaurant that allows smoking do you bear no responsibility for allowing yourself to be subjected to such "felonious" behavior?

NO , none , the owner of that business is opening his doors to me and others and by doing that he is saying hey, I got a nice place here and I'll assure your safety and health if you'll partake in my product . It's a contractual trade off . Smoking is hazardous , that has been firmly established so if he's allowing it he is breaking his part of the bargain. There is a way around this though . He could place a sign in plain view of the public that states this establishment is open to smokers only . Now that would suffice in my mind and be the only instance acceptable ....

my left foot wrote:

<quoted text>NO , none , the owner of that business is opening his doors to me and others and by doing that he is saying hey, I got a nice place here and I'll assure your safety and health if you'll partake in my product . It's a contractual trade off . Smoking is hazardous , that has been firmly established so if he's allowing it he is breaking his part of the bargain.

Sounds good, but I don't think that's accurate.

If a family is in the middle of the room, children running amok and one of the children suddenly erupts all over the table, chairs, and floor, then by your rationale the owner has broken his part of the bargain by not fully ensuring the safety and health of the other patrons.

Indoor smoking bans are not regulating the offer that the business owner makes, they are regulating the behavior of the other patrons.

Flaws within this scenario notwithstanding, the point I'm trying to make is that the assurance of health and safety that the owner provides is only that which is within his means to provide.

my left foot wrote:

There is a way around this though . He could place a sign in plain view of the public that states this establishment is open to smokers only . Now that would suffice in my mind and be the only instance acceptable ....

On this, I agree. In fact, I have seen enough agreement on this very proposal that it makes me wonder why it is not put forth as a first salvo in the war against tobacco.

Non-Cas Fan wrote:

<quoted text>Sounds good, but I don't think that's accurate.
If a family is in the middle of the room, children running amok and one of the children suddenly erupts all over the table, chairs, and floor, then by your rationale the owner has broken his part of the bargain by not fully ensuring the safety and health of the other patrons.
Indoor smoking bans are not regulating the offer that the business owner makes, they are regulating the behavior of the other patrons.
Flaws within this scenario notwithstanding, the point I'm trying to make is that the assurance of health and safety that the owner provides is only that which is within his means to provide.
<quoted text>
On this, I agree. In fact, I have seen enough agreement on this very proposal that it makes me wonder why it is not put forth as a first salvo in the war against tobacco.

Pennsylvania has laws that protect a person who is inside of a business establishment and is injured . They also have laws that regulate the serving of alcohol to individuals who later are injured in an accident (dramshop act ) There is responsibility there . Both are covered by insurance policies and when you said in his means to provide smoking would certainly be one behavior he could curtail....

I should have said visibly intoxicated individuals above are subject to the dramshop act

For goodness sake why cant we all be grown up about this. Aren`t we meant to be living in a democracy. What happened to freedom of choice. Has the whole world rejected the word "COMPROMISE". How sad!!!!If I don`t want to inhale other peoples disgusting smoke I am quite happy to seek and go out to places where I dont have to. If I WANT to go out with smokers then I have to make the choice......If I want to spend an evening with friends that isn`t interrupted by a smoke break outside every five minutes I have to make a choice.....They have that choice to make too. Or don`t now as the choice is being made for all of us. WHAT NEXT.!!!
If I go out for a drink I want to drink real COCA COLA not Pepsi or any other brand but not all places sell it so sometimes I or my friends or family have to compromise. Its actually not that hard. Why cant we have smoking bars AND non smoking bars, smoking clubs AND non smoking clubs,smoking restaurants AND non smoking restaurants???? Of course not all businesses can be regulated this way but the social sector seems to be the problem for most people.
So to all smokers and non smokers why dont you offer the same courtesy to each other that you expect from each other!!!!!!

Fred wrote:

The smokers are the ones complaining. These bans are going forward SUCCESSFULLY. I don't see any non-smokers complaining. I respect smokers as people, but I don't respect the habit.
Quit whining and kick the habit, or smoke at home
with your doors and windows closed.

Non smokers have been complaining for years, they`ve only stopped now that freedom of choice to EVERYONE has been taken away. We`ve listened to your whining for long enough now its your turn to listen to ours!!!! Just think... if all smokers AND whiners stayed indoors with their doors and windows closed ther wouldnt be an issue cos NO-ONE would be going out!!!

my left foot wrote:

<quoted text>Pennsylvania has laws that protect a person who is inside of a business establishment and is injured . They also have laws that regulate the serving of alcohol to individuals who later are injured in an accident (dramshop act ) There is responsibility there . Both are covered by insurance policies and when you said in his means to provide smoking would certainly be one behavior he could curtail....

And as a responsible owner who wishes to serve a nonsmoking clientèle, he *should* curtail that.

I guess one of the key elements, then, is to either substantiate the allegation of "harm" from ETS exposure while in a nonsmoking section of a business for the duration of a routine visit, or to allow the establishment of businesses that cater to those members of the public that choose to deliberately inhale tobacco smoke.(That would be via appropriate signage.)

Since there's been no way to substantiate the allegation of "harm" for such non-chronic and intermittent exposure, it seems that having the warning sign up front would be enough to keep all parties from unknowingly entering an environment that could cause them "harm".

Ali wrote:

For goodness sake why cant we all be grown up about this. Aren`t we meant to be living in a democracy. What happened to freedom of choice. Has the whole world rejected the word "COMPROMISE". How sad!!!!If I don`t want to inhale other peoples disgusting smoke I am quite happy to seek and go out to places where I dont have to. If I WANT to go out with smokers then I have to make the choice......If I want to spend an evening with friends that isn`t interrupted by a smoke break outside every five minutes I have to make a choice.....They have that choice to make too. Or don`t now as the choice is being made for all of us. WHAT NEXT.!!!
If I go out for a drink I want to drink real COCA COLA not Pepsi or any other brand but not all places sell it so sometimes I or my friends or family have to compromise. Its actually not that hard. Why cant we have smoking bars AND non smoking bars, smoking clubs AND non smoking clubs,smoking restaurants AND non smoking restaurants???? Of course not all businesses can be regulated this way but the social sector seems to be the problem for most people.
So to all smokers and non smokers why dont you offer the same courtesy to each other that you expect from each other!!!!!!

Because that would require "Common Sense" and the people in control HAVE NONE

my left foot wrote:

<quoted text>NO , none , the owner of that business is opening his doors to me and others and by doing that he is saying hey, I got a nice place here and I'll assure your safety and health if you'll partake in my product . It's a contractual trade off . Smoking is hazardous , that has been firmly established so if he's allowing it he is breaking his part of the bargain. There is a way around this though . He could place a sign in plain view of the public that states this establishment is open to smokers only . Now that would suffice in my mind and be the only instance acceptable ....

Well, if there was a sign that said that smoking was allowed, that would be the same. Then non-smokers would have fair warning that the atmosphere would have 'smoke' in it.
The 'bargain' that says that the premisis is safe? Then there should be warning signs that alcohol is served, since that is 'unsafe' and foods high in cholesterol, etc.

Dawnette wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, if there was a sign that said that smoking was allowed, that would be the same. Then non-smokers would have fair warning that the atmosphere would have 'smoke' in it.
The 'bargain' that says that the premisis is safe? Then there should be warning signs that alcohol is served, since that is 'unsafe' and foods high in cholesterol, etc.

Oh here we go again , off topic comparisons . Is it an apple or an orange , Jethro ?

my left foot wrote:

<quoted text>Oh here we go again , off topic comparisons . Is it an apple or an orange , Jethro ?

Why not come up with an original nickname for me.
It wasn't off topic, when you were talking about their 'contractual obligation' to keep people safe.
You want to make outlandish statements, but can't handle when they're thrown back at you?

Dawnette wrote:

<quoted text>
Why not come up with an original nickname for me.
It wasn't off topic, when you were talking about their 'contractual obligation' to keep people safe.
You want to make outlandish statements, but can't handle when they're thrown back at you?

and you want to compare apples and oranges . SIMPLE!SMOKING IS THE TOPIC . NOT ALCOHOL , OR WEIGHT OR RELIGIONS OR DOGS OR CATS OR SKUNKS.... IT'S SMOKING AND THE HAZARDS OF SMOKING . DUH.....

So, I am being cynical? Who cares.
You weren't talking about smoking or its hazards. You were talking about how a business owner does not have the right to have smoking areas in their business, because it makes the place 'unsafe/unhealthy'. I was saying that there are other things that could be just as bad. If you don't want to recognize those things, fine. Keep your tunnel vision that eliminating smoking will make the world a better place, and nobody will die.

It sounds like a great idea, but the truth is it won't happen because of the revenue smoking produces. Several years ago they talked about doing this in ND. But when it came to serious conversation...the loss of tax money was a drastic budget problem. The truth is, government (both federal and state) is additcted to the tax that comes from alcohol and smoking. Even the medial profession was against the proposed law when they discovered how much they would lose in taxes. The anti-smoking and drinking is only a political position...not something they can afford to have happen.

Thankful wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, the rate of cancer goes up in each organ, which makes the cancer risk rise exponentially for each year that you smoke. It takes up to 15 years for your risk to fully return to normal according to insurance risk companies...you can check it out when you ask for life insurance rates or cancer policies.

I wouldn't use health insurance companies as a source. They like to keep it quiet that the medical cost of smoking works out to around $200 per year more for a smoker than for a non-smoker. Obesity costs five times more in terms of medical costs than smoking.

Why make millions of people out as criminals,sounds foolish to me.Smoking & smokers should never be be outlawed and I doubt if it will ever happen.Smokers must just learn to control themselves,not smoke around the general public and not litter.

I think that they should reopen all of the workhouses and let the addicts clean the roadsides

my left foot wrote:

I think that they should reopen all of the workhouses and let the addicts clean the roadsides

Now that a good idea!