Hopes high for Md. smoking ban

Reba wrote:

<quoted text>
I am ALSO a non-smoker and I think this just candid is a complete IDIOT. making all non smokers look like the idiot he/she is. I do NOT enjoy being in a room full of smokers but one thing I hate worse is the the government telling me I can not be in a room full of smokers if I want to be.. SIMPLE CHOICE..

I agree. I no longer smoke, but, I have no problem with those that do. If, the smoke bothers me... if, the smoker was there first... I move away. If, the smoker comes to my location... I POLITELY ask them to move down wind of me.

My problem is with a gov't interceding where it has no business being.

Smoke Free wrote:

<quoted text>
I and many other non-smokers enjoy "Just Candid" remarks. The die hard smokers just can't see the truth Just Candid adds while also injecting some of his/her humor to these boards.
Actually, it's like shooting fish in a barrel with the Hard Core Smokers, no sport but still fun to do!!!

Die hard smokers???? I've seen countless non-smokers tell JC what a loon she is. You just made yourself look like an idiot. Thanks.

Smoke Free wrote:

<quoted text>
You couldn't be more WRONG!!! It's YOUR days as a nasty smoking addict that are MOST definitely numbered. Don't see many states reversing the smoking restrictions.
Serving over 22 years in the military is NOT un-patriotic. Sorry Pal!!!
Be a good little boy and go outside if you want a smoke, this is 2008.

First of all I'm not wrong because antis are in the minority compared to smokers and non-smokers. Serving over 22 years in the military doesn't give you or anyone the right to support the UNNECESSARY smoking bans in adult only establishments. You're an unpatriotic anti that has nazi-like beliefs. Be a good little nazi and hit the road.

just candid wrote:

The GOOD people living in Maryland seem quite happy with restrictions on smoking,and may push for even more.

What an idiot. The good people of the south also were quite happy with slavery.

Cigarette smokers tend to die 7-14 years before non-smokers. The way smokers die is often rather nasty. Aprox twenty five percent of all long turm smokers die from complications of COPD. As a smoker ask yourself, Is that the way I want to die?

And lest anyone forget, remember around 80-90% of all lung cancer is found in people who were or are now smokers. Few people survive lung cancer.

just candid wrote:

Cigarette smokers tend to die 7-14 years before non-smokers. The way smokers die is often rather nasty. Aprox twenty five percent of all long turm smokers die from complications of COPD. As a smoker ask yourself, Is that the way I want to die?

Are you this rough on the meat eaters? You do know that eating meat causes LUNG cancer....right?

The way meat eaters dies is quite nasty eh?

http://eat.rawfood.com/_landing/view.php...

updated 10:41 a.m. ET, Tues., Dec. 11, 2007

WASHINGTON - People who eat a lot of red meat and processed meats have a higher risk of several types of cancer, including lung cancer and colorectal cancer, U.S. researchers reported.

"Statistically significant elevated risks (ranging from 20 percent to 60 percent) were evident for esophageal, colorectal, liver, and lung cancer, comparing individuals in the highest with those in the lowest quintile of red meat intake," the researchers wrote.
----------

How will you die Candid? Will your death be peaceful?

Smoke Free wrote:

<quoted text>
You couldn't be more WRONG!!! It's YOUR days as a nasty smoking addict that are MOST definitely numbered. Don't see many states reversing the smoking restrictions.
Serving over 22 years in the military is NOT un-patriotic. Sorry Pal!!!
Be a good little boy and go outside if you want a smoke, this is 2008.

Talk about unpatriotic, take away property rights ...Socialism at its best ...here is what Sen. Mike Folmer had to say.

I wholeheartedly believe that we should continue to push for good public health. At the same time, I am obliged to uphold the solemn oath I made to honor the Constitution, which protects private-property rights. Pennsylvanians are endowed by God with the right to own and use private property. Smoking, though highly unhealthful and distasteful, is legal. Further, it is the right and the prerogative of those who

own private establishments to determine whether or not their patrons can engage in legal activities. Nonsmokers enter a private establishment as a privilege extended by the owner, not as a constitutional right. The private business owner’s right to allow his patrons to engage in a legal activity supersedes the intolerance of that activity by those who patronize the establishment by privilege.

We should — and we will — continue to wage the battle against smoking, but we should not do so by burning the Constitution into a pile of ashes.
Now there are those that make the claim that just because the public is invited in that it is no longer considered to be private property. Nothing could be further from the truth and the Supreme Court agrees in Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner Held: There has been no dedication of petitioner’s privately owned and operated shopping center to public use so as to entitle respondents to exercise First Amendment rights therein that are unrelated to the center’s operations, and petitioner’s property did not lose its private character and its right to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment merely because the public is generally invited to use it for the purpose of doing business with petitioner’s tenants.
There is also that claim that smoking is not a right, well there again that which is not out and out banned by the government is a right under the Ninth Amendment.
A Brief Review:
The 9th Amendment of
the U. S. Constitution
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.co...

fluteman greg wrote:

<quoted text>What an idiot. The good people of the south also were quite happy with slavery.

Smokers are slaves to nicotine, are you one?

The self enslavement of smokers is a sad thing to see.

just candid wrote:

<quoted text> Smokers are slaves to nicotine, are you one?

You spew stupid stuff about the good people of Md and this is the best you have. How pathetic.

Antis are slaves to controlling people, are you one? YES!!!

Maryland has always been a great state to live and work in, now with restrictions on smoking it's even better.

Free_America wrote:

<quoted text>Talk about unpatriotic, take away property rights ...Socialism at its best ...here is what Sen. Mike Folmer had to say.
I wholeheartedly believe that we should continue to push for good public health. At the same time, I am obliged to uphold the solemn oath I made to honor the Constitution, which protects private-property rights. Pennsylvanians are endowed by God with the right to own and use private property. Smoking, though highly unhealthful and distasteful, is legal. Further, it is the right and the prerogative of those who
own private establishments to determine whether or not their patrons can engage in legal activities. Nonsmokers enter a private establishment as a privilege extended by the owner, not as a constitutional right. The private business owner’s right to allow his patrons to engage in a legal activity supersedes the intolerance of that activity by those who patronize the establishment by privilege.
We should — and we will — continue to wage the battle against smoking, but we should not do so by burning the Constitution into a pile of ashes.
Now there are those that make the claim that just because the public is invited in that it is no longer considered to be private property. Nothing could be further from the truth and the Supreme Court agrees in Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner Held: There has been no dedication of petitioner’s privately owned and operated shopping center to public use so as to entitle respondents to exercise First Amendment rights therein that are unrelated to the center’s operations, and petitioner’s property did not lose its private character and its right to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment merely because the public is generally invited to use it for the purpose of doing business with petitioner’s tenants.

WOW what a bozo you are, you add delete and modified Sen. Folmer statement.
Here's his official website statement:
Senator Mike Folmer's (R-48) Statement on the Smoking Ban
"I opposed Senate Bill 246 as an unconstitutional infringement on private property rights. We have been winning the war against smoking without having to resort to unconstitutional infringements on private property rights. Through the commendable efforts of public health advocates and groups such as the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society, smoking is prohibited in hospitals, airports, libraries, theaters, malls, all publicly owned buildings and many restaurants. I believe we should continue the campaign for good public health in a constitutional manner by protecting the rights of private property owners."
And here's what I say about this. The State Senator says "smoking is prohibited in hospitals, airports, libraries, theaters, malls, all publicly owned buildings and many restaurants."
What a PUTZ he is, I think he's a little confused on what a publicly and privately owned business is? Glad he's up in PA, he'd be run out of town in most modern states.
Hospitals, theaters and malls CAN BE and most likely are PRIVATELY OWNED!!!!
The Tobacco Company Propaganda CRAP "Free America" added was just soooooo bogus. The crap about Supreme Court agrees in Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner has NOTHING to do with this, read the whole thing, it's about people on his sidewalk in his shopping center. How you addicts read and TWIST things just amazes me.
Smoking is a HEALTH ISSUE, plain and simple. It's just as much a HEALTH ISSUE in a public building as it is in a PRIVATE building.
So this Putz from PA is he going to fight against all the other codes, laws and ordinances the PRIVATE owners already have to follow or just the ones that FILL HIS POCKETS???

just candid wrote:

Maryland has always been a great state to live and work in, now with restrictions on smoking it's even better.

Awesome. Please stay there.

Smoke Free wrote:

<quoted text>
WOW what a bozo you are, you add delete and modified Sen. Folmer statement.
Here's his official website statement:
Senator Mike Folmer's (R-48) Statement on the Smoking Ban
"I opposed Senate Bill 246 as an unconstitutional infringement on private property rights. We have been winning the war against smoking without having to resort to unconstitutional infringements on private property rights. Through the commendable efforts of public health advocates and groups such as the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society, smoking is prohibited in hospitals, airports, libraries, theaters, malls, all publicly owned buildings and many restaurants. I believe we should continue the campaign for good public health in a constitutional manner by protecting the rights of private property owners."
And here's what I say about this. The State Senator says "smoking is prohibited in hospitals, airports, libraries, theaters, malls, all publicly owned buildings and many restaurants."
What a PUTZ he is, I think he's a little confused on what a publicly and privately owned business is? Glad he's up in PA, he'd be run out of town in most modern states.
Hospitals, theaters and malls CAN BE and most likely are PRIVATELY OWNED!!!!
The Tobacco Company Propaganda CRAP "Free America" added was just soooooo bogus. The crap about Supreme Court agrees in Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner has NOTHING to do with this, read the whole thing, it's about people on his sidewalk in his shopping center. How you addicts read and TWIST things just amazes me.
Smoking is a HEALTH ISSUE, plain and simple. It's just as much a HEALTH ISSUE in a public building as it is in a PRIVATE building.
So this Putz from PA is he going to fight against all the other codes, laws and ordinances the PRIVATE owners already have to follow or just the ones that FILL HIS POCKETS???

Right back to circular reasoning just as all socialists do eh?

One intrusion justifies another intrusion...which justifies another intrusion. That's a pretty dangerous way to attempt to apply logic eh?

Just to demonstrate how poorly thought out your position is....

Would you care to site precedent from our nations past that you are particularly proud of where the owner of the property was forced to change their LEGAL lifestyle on their own land...even in their private office?

Oh yes...perhaps you will tell us what form of government is most likely to declare the private office of a business owner..."public space"?

HHhhmmmm.

fluteman greg wrote:

<quoted text>Awesome. Please stay there.

We don't want her here!!!!

Happy Contented Soul wrote:

<quoted text>We don't want her here!!!!

LOL. You already have her so you have to keep her. Maybe you can ship her off to some third world country where they might not mind nazis.

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
Would you care to site precedent from our nations past that you are particularly proud of where the owner of the property was forced to change their LEGAL lifestyle on their own land...even in their private office?

Nope, know please go out next to the dumpster where the smokers belong.
Ain't life grand!!!!Oh and it's smoke free too.

Smoke Free wrote:

<quoted text>WOW what a bozo you are, you add delete and modified Sen. Folmer statement.

A modified nothing, taken right from his letter to the editor.
http://www.ldnews.com/letterseditor/ci_957512...

Smoke Free wrote:

<quoted text>
And here's what I say about this. The State Senator says "smoking is prohibited in hospitals, airports, libraries, theaters, malls, all publicly owned buildings and many restaurants."
What a PUTZ he is, I think he's a little confused on what a publicly and privately owned business is? Glad he's up in PA, he'd be run out of town in most modern states.
Hospitals, theaters and malls CAN BE and most likely are PRIVATELY OWNED!!!!

He said it was prohibited not banned many places have chosen to go non-smoking by choice I know that concept goes way over your head, maybe your mommie can explain that to you.

Smoke Free wrote:

<quoted text>
The Tobacco Company Propaganda CRAP "Free America" added was just soooooo bogus. The crap about Supreme Court agrees in Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner has NOTHING to do with this,

Actually it has everything to do with it. You anti's argue that because the public is invited in that they loose their rights that are normally applied to private property the suit shows that the public does not have first amendment rights on private property, it shows that even though the public is invited in the rights are retained by the owner.

Smoke Free wrote:

<quoted text>
Smoking is a HEALTH ISSUE, plain and simple. It's just as much a HEALTH ISSUE in a public building as it is in a PRIVATE building.
So this Putz from PA is he going to fight against all the other codes, laws and ordinances the PRIVATE owners already have to follow or just the ones that FILL HIS POCKETS???

Proponents justify a ban by arguing that secondhand smoke is a health risk. But all sorts of human activities are risky - from contact sports to rock climbing, from skiing to swimming, from riding a bike to having sex. Yet many people swim, bike and play football because they take pleasure in doing so, and that’s their choice. In a liberal society, people are free to make their own risk and lifestyle choices - including whether to smoke.
Ban supporters respond that smokers inflict harm on other people, including bar and restaurant employees and other patrons. But again, all sorts of activities impose risks on others, and again, those people bear those risks willingly. Rock climbers endanger rescue workers, pool owners endanger lifeguards and patrons, fishing boat captains endanger their crews, and so on. We grant people the choice to be rangers or lifeguards or commercial fishermen. Why shouldn’t we allow people to choose to patronize or work in smoking bars and restaurants?
Ban supporters may dispute this, arguing that our society has health and safety regulations to protect people from risk. Smoking bans, they say, are no different than those regulations. But their reasoning is wrong. Most health and safety regulations are justified because they protect people from hidden risks. For instance, government inspects restaurant kitchens because patrons can’t. Bars where smoking is permitted are hardly hidden risks.
In fairness, some safety regulations do involve recognized risks, but few of them are outright bans. Coal mining, farming and commercial fishing are all extremely risky jobs and heavily regulated, yet there is no push to ban them. We respect the entrepreneurs’ choice to own these businesses and the workers’ choice to operate.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php...