Raw Dawgin' it;1179828 wrote:Most people don't smoke and don't want to smell like an ash tray.

Sonofanump;1179834 wrote:Yeah! I wish they had a law that prohibited smoking within 50 feet of a business unless in a self contained cancer room. Nothing worse than trying to have my 7 year old avoid some inconsiderate bastard puffing away at a cancer stick in front of a restaurant we would like to enter.

vball10set;1179835 wrote:Kudos to the Supreme Court...well done :thumbup:

Mooney44Cards;1179838 wrote:The people who don't like the ban can move to another state. Nobody is making them live in Ohio.

dlazz;1179853 wrote:It's not that ridiculous though, so the point your trying to make is moot.

justincredible;1179877 wrote:How long before cigarettes are illegal?

WebFire;1180022 wrote:So drinking and driving should be legal?

WebFire;1180125 wrote:Not really. Smoking impinges on the well-being of others. But that's not true the other way around.

pnhasbeen;1180167 wrote:Who say's you have a right to enjoy an establishment?

Big_Mirg_ZHS;1180719 wrote:Whats so confusing??

WebFire;1180022 wrote:So drinking and driving should be legal?

pnhasbeen;1180140 wrote:I interpreted his remark as saying if cigarettes are legal, it should be the owner of the establishment's decision to allow or not allow. Similar to allowing or not allowing alcohol.

FatHobbit;1180792 wrote:I'm a little late coming back to the party, but there are plenty of things that are unhealthy. I don't want the government telling me what to do with those either.

ts1227;1180799 wrote:So we should abolish health departments entirely?

FatHobbit;1180792 wrote:I'm a little late coming back to the party, but there are plenty of things that are unhealthy. I don't want the government telling me what to do with those either.

Mooney44Cards;1180807 wrote:So we should allow corporations to start dumping chemicals into the source of a town's drinking water? After all, we don't want the government telling us what we can/can't do with unhealthy things.

FatHobbit;1180816 wrote:Do corporations (and farmers) not pollute water now?

Gblock;1180840 wrote:i think they should have the right to open up a smoking bar if they want for people who smoke. period. especially if it is a bar that doesnt serve food. i mean its kindof dumb to say you can drink but cant smoke when liquor is just as bad if not worse for you.

Mooney44Cards;1180851 wrote:I'm not disagreeing with your idea....but the reasoning is flawed. Drinking and smoking should not be compared. I cannot damage my liver from standing around people who are drinking.

So we should allow corporations to start dumping chemicals into the source of a town's drinking water? After all, we don't want the government telling us what we can/can't do with unhealthy things

confucius99;1181030 wrote:That's not a valid analogy at all. Almost everybody has to use the town's water supply,

Gblock;1180840 wrote: i mean its kindof dumb to say you can drink but cant smoke when liquor is just as bad if not worse for you.

Big_Mirg_ZHS;1181086 wrote:More likely to die in an auto accident than from second hand smoke. So should we outlaw driving?

vball10set;1181093 wrote:Apples and Oranges...a more appropriate analogy is you're more likely to die of lung cancer from smoking than you are to die in an auto accident. People are too stupid to not smoke in an establishment where kids and/or elderly patrons are present, therefore it IS up to the federal government to regulate it.

confucius99;1181030 wrote:That's not a valid analogy at all. Almost everybody has to use the town's water supply, but nobody has to patronize a bar that allows smoking on its premises. Basically this anti-smoking ordinance is a plea for government to save us from taking charge of our own lives..AKA as "Iam too stupid or weak to resist walking into an area that I deem unhealthy". Nobody has to go into a building or a restaraunt, or a bar if they don't want to. All that should be required is that an establishment prominently display whether it is a smoking or non smoking establishment.
It is just a shame that we keep giving government the power to over-reach intio our lives, all in the name of someone's interpretation of "public good".

WebFire;1181080 wrote:No they don't. They can get their own water wherever they'd like.

confucius99;1181147 wrote:??? Really?
I'm kinda new around here. Are people on this site normally this obtuse?

confucius99;1181147 wrote:??? Really?
I'm kinda new around here. Are people on this site normally this obtuse?

confucius99;1181030 wrote:That's not a valid analogy at all. Almost everybody has to use the town's water supply, but nobody has to patronize a bar that allows smoking on its premises. Basically this anti-smoking ordinance is a plea for government to save us from taking charge of our own lives..AKA as "Iam too stupid or weak to resist walking into an area that I deem unhealthy". Nobody has to go into a building or a restaraunt, or a bar if they don't want to. All that should be required is that an establishment prominently display whether it is a smoking or non smoking establishment.
It is just a shame that we keep giving government the power to over-reach intio our lives, all in the name of someone's interpretation of "public good".

FatHobbit;1181094 wrote:I agree with your sentiment, but I just don't feel 100% comfortable asking the government to step in because people are too stupid to do the right thing.

confucius99;1181147 wrote:??? Really?
I'm kinda new around here. Are people on this site normally this obtuse?