Thank you, Justin.

For what it is worth, I didn't go out to eat much at all when I was younger because of this. Anytime we went out, we had to get tables on the opposite side of the restaurant from the smoking section, which typically meant waiting the extra time. Wasn't worth the hassle. The ban has been in place since I was 20, so I've never had an issue going to bars.

I disagree somewhat in comparing it to a peanut allergy. I have trouble walking into buildings on campus at BGSU or even at entrances to any place in general because of how many smokers line up right outside the doors. It's not something I can avoid most of the time. Do you see people with peanut allergies complaining about people throwing peanuts at them? Didn't think so. Food allergies are a bit of a different issue. I'm allergic to seafood as well, and that one's pretty easy to manage. I don't worry about people waiting outside of entrances to smack me upside the head with a fish. I don't worry about fish particles lingering in the air. I make sure I don't order anything that has seafood in it, and I make sure a waiter/waitress knows I can't have something fried in the same oil as seafood or cooked on a grill that hasn't been cleaned since having seafood cooked on it. Nobody raises an issue about that. The worst that ever comes of that is being told I'm missing out! If I try to let someone know about the same thing with cigarette smoke, I'm made out to be some villain who wants to destroy their rights and destroy America (yes, I've been told that), etc. All I want is to be able to walk into a building without getting a migraine or having difficulty breathing for the next hour. Somewhere in there there's a disconnect.

You make some good points and I sympathize with your situation. However, I don't think legislation should be passed just because a minute part of the population has a hyper-sensitivity to the by-product of a legal substance.

I keep hearing about people who hated SHS and I still wonder why one of these people did not have the initiative to open a smoke free bar, given the apparent demand.Seems like it would have been an instant money maker.

I hate SHS and I didn't frequent bars because of that. I had very little problem finding a smoke free restaurant and I suspect that smoke free restaurants would have become the norm if the free market had been allowed to work.

Well, it's not like most people just have the money to open a bar. There's a bit more that goes into that than just wanting to open one.

I'm not necessarily arguing for legislation on the issue, but I guess I'm wondering why I get attacked over it. It's not like I can always move out of the way. Is it that much to ask that I be able to walk into buildings without an issue?

Prescott wrote: I keep hearing about people who hated SHS and I still wonder why one of these people did not have the initiative to open a smoke free bar, given the apparent demand.Seems like it would have been an instant money maker.

because smokers would say you are infringing on their rights to smoke in a public place and that bar would soon be filled with smokers. and yes, smokers would go there because they wouldnt just be abandoned by their non smoking friends. it would be bound to happen eventually.

Well, it's not like most people just have the money to open a bar.

In the legions of people who hate SHS, there must have been a few with the means to open a smoke-free bar. We both know why that didn't happen and it has nothing to do with money.

Is it that much to ask that I be able to walk into buildings without an issue?

Yes, if the building houses a privately owned business.

because smokers would say you are infringing on their rights to smoke in a public place

That is probably why I saw all of those smokers protesting outside of the local Applebees when they went smoke free (3) years ago.

Prescott wrote:Yes, if the building houses a privately owned business.

Not so much for a public university.

GeneralsIcer89 wrote:

Prescott wrote:Yes, if the building houses a privately owned business.

Not so much for a public university.

I have no problem with government owned buildings being smoke free.

It's right outside of them where my issue is. In the buildings is one thing. Getting into the buildings is another.

Clicked on 'For the Ban'..but it really doesn't matter to me either way. Smokers don't bother me.

GoChiefs wrote: Clicked on 'For the Ban'..but it really doesn't matter to me either way. Smokers don't bother me.

Yeah, I look at it as something to tolerate not something that is forced on me. Other things I tolerate on a night out that would be nice to ban: awful and pungent perfumes and colognes, boorish drunken behavior, crowded bars causing people to bump into you and spill your drink....

GoChiefs wrote: Clicked on 'For the Ban'..but it really doesn't matter to me either way. Smokers don't bother me.

Agreed.

get rid of those nasty thinks

You can smell the smoke on people that smoke--a real nose opener when they go pass.

noreply66 wrote: get rid of those nasty thinks

You can smell the smoke on people that smoke--a real nose opener when they go pass.

My god yes! If you find something unpleasant then we should clearly ban that thing.

Bump... why not.

I have to disagree with the way your poll questions are worded...and I realize you've been trying to be accurate. But regulation is completely different that 'banning' as I've noted on a post on this topic. I would not be against 'regulation'...i.e. air quality standards for a 'non smoking' section. Visible posting if a place allowed smoking on it's premises. etc. That is not what the law is...it is an outright ban under any circumstances...which is where it crosses the line of public health and infringement of personal choices/freedoms.

How come no one complains about the most rampant example of government stopping you from opening completely legal operations, that simply exists because of what people "don't like to be around"... zoning?

HitsRus wrote: I have to disagree with the way your poll questions are worded...and I realize you've been trying to be accurate. But regulation is completely different that 'banning' as I've noted on a post on this topic. I would not be against 'regulation'...i.e. air quality standards for a 'non smoking' section. Visible posting if a place allowed smoking on it's premises. etc. That is not what the law is...it is an outright ban under any circumstances...which is where it crosses the line of public health and infringement of personal choices/freedoms.

Can't please everyone, I guess. Banning is a form of GOVERNMENT regulation to our freedoms, granted to us by our great Constitution.

I'm trying to draw a distinction between 'regulation' and an outright ban. Huge difference. I know you've gone back and forth on on trying to get the wording 'right ' for your poll, and I don't think it really matters as everyone klnows the debate.

My point...alcohol is regulated, but it is not banned under all circumstances. Guns are regulated (even though it is a constitutional right), but they are not 'banned' in all circumstances. That is not the case with smoking. which is banned in all places of public accomodation. Even guns are not 'regulated' as such.
'Bans' should be rejected by all freedom loving Americans as a matter of principle....especially ballot initiatives which leave no room for discussion reconsideration or compromise. 'Regulation', if necessary at all, should be left in the hands of the legislature where all sides can get a fair hearing.

It's not an outright ban. You can smoke in places that bring in enough revenue from it, properly labeled hotel rooms, and a couple others. It has circumstances just like anything else, just not as many as you would like.

Other than hotel rooms...name them.

Casinos

HitsRus wrote: I'm trying to draw a distinction between 'regulation' and an outright ban. Huge difference. I know you've gone back and forth on on trying to get the wording 'right ' for your poll, and I don't think it really matters as everyone klnows the debate.

My point...alcohol is regulated, but it is not banned under all circumstances. Guns are regulated (even though it is a constitutional right), but they are not 'banned' in all circumstances. That is not the case with smoking. which is banned in all places of public accomodation. Even guns are not 'regulated' as such.
'Bans' should be rejected by all freedom loving Americans as a matter of principle....especially ballot initiatives which leave no room for discussion reconsideration or compromise. 'Regulation', if necessary at all, should be left in the hands of the legislature where all sides can get a fair hearing.

All-in-all, it is government "regulation." It is different types of regulation.

haha everyone has to rememeber, we the people voted on it. the ohio state legislature and executive body did not do this by themselves. i love the government is doing this blah blah blah...haha no, WE did it.

Lobbyists.