gut;1182452 wrote:A very common sense approach, and hardly ground-breaking nor an elusive idea. But tolerance/accommodation does not fit with the prohibition-minded agenda. It's working, too - smoking rates have dropped significantly and continue to decline. High taxes weren't particularly effective, but gradually taking away opportunities/places to smoke is proving to be very effective.

GOONx19;1182359 wrote:FIFY. You may be a genius, but there's no way you passed middle school English. I didn't even mess with your sentence structure.

I don't have a problem with anyone smoking, but you'd think a genius would realize that smoking causes irreversible genetic mutations that result in a suboptimal DNA repair capacity. The connection between that subpar capacity and an quickened rate of carcinogenesis has been proven time and time again. If you do realize that but continue smoking, then it's time to question your decision-making abilities. There aren't many ways that humans have more control over their well-being than by not smoking. Staying fit and avoiding tanning beds are just about it.

As for non-smokers having more rights than smokers, that's just a ridiculous statement.

Big_Mirg_ZHS;1183134 wrote:

That's my fault for missing a couple punctuation and fake coughs is fine why does that need changed. Don't go back to grammar it is the interwebs and if we can't attack someones position we attack grammar. I don't like one group of citizens telling the others what they can do. It starts with smoking but where does it end??? They're was plenty of restaraunts in my town that were nonsmoking. The people had choices. Now I don't have choices how is that fair?

bigkahuna;1183136 wrote:I'd like to know what town this is. Until the ban came, I never came across a restaurant that DIDN'T have a smoking/non-smoking section.

ts1227;1183141 wrote:Many chains had gone completely nonsmoking before the ban, because they wanted something other than white trash to come to their establishments. Plus the nonsmoking trend (like most all trends) started nationally WAY before Ohio came on board.

ts1227;1183141 wrote:Many chains had gone completely nonsmoking before the ban, because they wanted something other than white trash to come to their establishments. Plus the nonsmoking trend (like most all trends) started nationally WAY before Ohio came on board.

Big_Mirg_ZHS;1183134 wrote:

That's my fault for missing a couple punctuation and fake coughs is fine why does that need changed. Don't go back to grammar it is the interwebs and if we can't attack someones position we attack grammar. I don't like one group of citizens telling the others what they can do. It starts with smoking but where does it end??? They're was plenty of restaraunts in my town that were nonsmoking. The people had choices. Now I don't have choices how is that fair?

ts1227;1183141 wrote:Many chains had gone completely nonsmoking before the ban, because they wanted something other than white trash to come to their establishments. Plus the nonsmoking trend (like most all trends) started nationally WAY before Ohio came on board.

WebFire;1183145 wrote:So you don't want one group of citizens telling the others what they can do. Unless it's smokers having the say? Then it's acceptable?

Y-Town Steelhound;1183153 wrote:Equality!? You wanna talk about EQUALITY!? How about the 90% of jobs out there that will let their employees take a "5 minute smoke break" whenever they damn well please while non smokers have to continue doing their jobs? How's that for equality?

ts1227;1183141 wrote:Many chains had gone completely nonsmoking before the ban, because they wanted something other than white trash to come to their establishments.

Sonofanump;1183164 wrote:I do not think that you can call all smokers trash if only pertains to 87% of that population.

Y-Town Steelhound;1183153 wrote:Equality!? You wanna talk about EQUALITY!? How about the 90% of jobs out there that will let their employees take a "5 minute smoke break" whenever they damn well please while non smokers have to continue doing their jobs? How's that for equality?

DeyDurkie5;1183180 wrote: Although, as with most stereotypes, white trash people and cigs go hand in hand.

Curly J;1183170 wrote:I say 90% is a pretty high number. Especially now days.

I've worked for a couple of companies that have banned smoking on their grounds, even smoking in your own vehicle on their grounds.

One company even went as far as the employees referring to a personal day off as a 'Smoke Day'.

One company had an online application process. If you checked you were a smoker they thanked you and showed no jobs available. If you went to a different computer and checked non smoker it would thank you then show you the job openings. I know this because it was a company I used to work for. I mentioned it to a friend of mine, who still worked there. Knowing him he must have said something to the higher ups about it because within a couple of days that changed.

DeyDurkie5;1183180 wrote:The point is this. Second hand smoke has been known to cause health problems. While I am all for people having their choice to smoke, the fact remains that people who don't smoke don't want to have that in the air at restaurants. It shouldn't be automatically banned by the state or whoever just because a few people don't like it, it should be up to the establishments to decide if they want smoking or not. It has nothing to do with who's better than who. that's just being defensive about the subject. Although, as with most stereotypes, white trash people and cigs go hand in hand.

Big_Mirg_ZHS;1183210 wrote:But just because you smoke doesnt make you white trash.

DeyDurkie5;1183224 wrote:I didn't say it did. If you want to smoke, so be it. But it should be up to the establishment to allow/disallow smoking, not the states deciding for everyone.

Fab1b;1183228 wrote:What is the difference between allowing the govt vs the establishments set the rules on when and where you can drink vs when and where you can smoke? You can't drink wherever you want to, why should you smoke wherever you want to? No difference here in my book, both taxed and regulated by the govt not the establishments though I do wish establishments actually had the say even though I enjoy the smoking bans.