Ohio residents - which smoking ban are you voting for this November?

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
VOTE YES ON BOTH...who needs freedom anyway.

I like freedom. The freedom to not be bothered by smoke. If you want the freedom to kill yourself by smoking, fine. I'll hurry things up and let you borrow a gun.

I like the freedom to do what I want with my own sh!t. If I started a business and I want to fvcking smoke in there, I'm going to smoke in there. If I want to disallow it, I'll disallow it. The government has no fvcking business in the private sector.

I fvcking hate how non-smokers are so excited to give up private property rights.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Amused
I wouldn't vote for either. Smoking bans are a violation of private property rights.

Contrary to what the socialists would have you believe, a business is private property. The owner has the right to cater to whomever he pleases. If you don't like it, tough titties.

Notice: I am not a smoker and I despise the smell of cigarette smoke.

I see the point, but I refuse to disallow myself the pleasure of visiting places where there are smokers just because less than 25% of the population is being catered to better than the majority. I will use my vote selfishly with no regrets just as smokers selfishly light up where people who don't smoke would prefer clean air.

I truly can't fathom why so many people in America still think smoking is so damn delicious. I think of pack-a-day (or more) smokers and think "You wouldn't eat a quart of ice cream every day, you wouldn't eat a pound of french fries everyday, you wouldn't go bungee jumping or skydiving everyday, why is smoking so damn special that you are willing to do this so frequently over something that is a less of a health risk?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Individual freedom dictates a "No" on both. Of the two, issue 4 is less offensive as it preserves greater business freedom. Banning smoking in bars is just stupid IMO.

ZV

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
VOTE YES ON BOTH...who needs freedom anyway.

I like freedom. The freedom to not be bothered by smoke. If you want the freedom to kill yourself by smoking, fine. I'll hurry things up and let you borrow a gun.

I like the freedom to do what I want with my own sh!t. If I started a business and I want to fvcking smoke in there, I'm going to smoke in there. If I want to disallow it, I'll disallow it. The government has no fvcking business in the private sector.

I fvcking hate how non-smokers are so excited to give up private property rights.

OMG WE'RE GIVING UP SO MANY RIGHTS BECAUSE WE WANT TO STOP PEOPLE FROM SMOKING WHERE WE GO. OH NOES!

What if we required a liscense for a smoking establishment just like we required it for serving alcohol? What then?

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Individual freedom dictates a "No" on both. Of the two, issue 4 is less offensive as it preserves greater business freedom. Banning smoking in bars is just stupid IMO.

ZV

Something tells me that people won't stay home on Friday night just because they can't smoke indoors.

 

[So]

No on both, but 5 is close to reasonable.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Injury
I see the point, but I refuse to disallow myself the pleasure of visiting places where there are smokers just because less than 25% of the population is being catered to better than the majority.

Tough sh*t. You do not have a "right" to go to any private business. None. You do not have a "right" to go to a restaurant or bar. The only buildings you have a "right" to enter are public buildings (e.g. city hall, courthouses, etc).

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Individual freedom dictates a "No" on both. Of the two, issue 4 is less offensive as it preserves greater business freedom. Banning smoking in bars is just stupid IMO.

ZV

Something tells me that people won't stay home on Friday night just because they can't smoke indoors.

I don't give two sh*ts about the smokers. I care about business owners being strong-armed into doing something they don't want to do. The effects on profits and on smokers are irrelevent. This is an encroachment on individual business owners' rights.

ZV

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Injury
I see the point, but I refuse to disallow myself the pleasure of visiting places where there are smokers just because less than 25% of the population is being catered to better than the majority.

Tough sh*t. You do not have a "right" to go to any private business. None. You do not have a "right" to go to a restaurant or bar. The only buildings you have a "right" to enter are public buildings (e.g. city hall, courthouses, etc).

ZV

Thank you!

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
VOTE YES ON BOTH...who needs freedom anyway.

I like freedom. The freedom to not be bothered by smoke. If you want the freedom to kill yourself by smoking, fine. I'll hurry things up and let you borrow a gun.

Don't wanna be bothered by smoke? Don't go somewhere with second hand smoke.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
I like the freedom to do what I want with my own sh!t. If I started a business and I want to fvcking smoke in there, I'm going to smoke in there. If I want to disallow it, I'll disallow it. The government has no fvcking business in the private sector.

I fvcking hate how non-smokers are so excited to give up private property rights.

Sadly people very narrow minded. These bans pass easily because people think like this...

"I don't like second hand smoke, therefore I shall help make it illegal for property owners to allow it so that I can waddle my intolerant ass into their restaurant and order food while the smokers have to stay at home. Victory for me. ME ME ME!!!!"

With all these bans and regulations...nobody really OWNS their business anymore...the government does.

Most of my city voted yes on the bans here in our state. Ironically, the elected officials in our city and county voted against it on the basis of property rights.

 

[Stuxnet]

I'll vote on any smoking ban they put in front of me. I shouldn't have to smoke just because Joe Crackhead wants to. Privacy of own home = exception.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Injury
I see the point, but I refuse to disallow myself the pleasure of visiting places where there are smokers just because less than 25% of the population is being catered to better than the majority.

Tough sh*t. You do not have a "right" to go to any private business. None. You do not have a "right" to go to a restaurant or bar. The only buildings you have a "right" to enter are public buildings (e.g. city hall, courthouses, etc).

ZV

Who said anything about having a right to go there?

Not me.

I'm in with the majority that doesn't smoke. And if that majority decides that smoking shouldn't be allowed in places of business, I'll be happy because I don't give a damn about smokers. Yes, I'm being selfish about it because no smoker I know or don't know would stop from lighting a cigarette inside a bar in an act of selflessness. I don't give a sh!t about the owner's rights because they are the ones that make the money. As long as the money is still coming in, who gives a damn? Seriously.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Individual freedom dictates a "No" on both. Of the two, issue 4 is less offensive as it preserves greater business freedom. Banning smoking in bars is just stupid IMO.

ZV

Something tells me that people won't stay home on Friday night just because they can't smoke indoors.

I don't give two sh*ts about the smokers. I care about business owners being strong-armed into doing something they don't want to do. The effects on profits and on smokers are irrelevent. This is an encroachment on individual business owners' rights.

ZV

haha... are you freaking serious? I'm sure there are LOADS of bar owners that would LOVE to go non-smoking but won't, because they know that part of the business will go to another bar. Like I said in the last post, it's about the money. I haven't seen one damn bar or restaurant owner protest about this yet, but have heard some that are in favor of the ban.

To put it plainly, I don't give a rat's ass about their right to have a smoking establishment because smoking f*cking kills people. Just like I wouldn't support a Russian Roulette Parlor or a Bleach drinking party.

My vote represents ME, MY FEELINGS, MY THOUGHTS, MY LIFE... not a restaurant owner's rights, profits or desires for smoking.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
I like the freedom to do what I want with my own sh!t. If I started a business and I want to fvcking smoke in there, I'm going to smoke in there. If I want to disallow it, I'll disallow it. The government has no fvcking business in the private sector.

I fvcking hate how non-smokers are so excited to give up private property rights.

Sadly people very narrow minded. These bans pass easily because people think like this...

"I don't like second hand smoke, therefore I shall help make it illegal for property owners to allow it so that I can waddle my intolerant ass into their restaurant and order food while the smokers have to stay at home. Victory for me. ME ME ME!!!!"

With all these bans and regulations...nobody really OWNS their business anymore...the government does.

Most of my city voted yes on the bans here in our state. Ironically, the elected officials in our city and county voted against it on the basis of property rights.

We're the narrow minded ones? You think smokers are going to have to sit at home just beacuse they wouldn't be able to smoke in establishments, yet you want non-smokers to stay home so they wouldn't be bothered by the smoke?

How about this? Want a place you can smoke at? DON'T OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC. What about that one?

It's a lot of difference when the "ME ME ME" is 75% of the ME ME ME's in the country.

 

[ViRGE]

IIRC, isn't one of these indirectly backed by the tobacco lobby? I seem to remember something on NBC Nightly News months ago about this.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
IIRC, isn't one of these indirectly backed by the tobacco lobby? I seem to remember something on NBC Nightly News months ago about this.

Yes, issue 4, the one that pretty much makes it a superior law that all current places that allow smoking can allow it.

 

[MrBond]

Originally posted by: Injury
haha... are you freaking serious? I'm sure there are LOADS of bar owners that would LOVE to go non-smoking but won't, because they know that part of the business will go to another bar. Like I said in the last post, it's about the money. I haven't seen one damn bar or restaurant owner protest about this yet, but have heard some that are in favor of the ban.

I haven't heard much from bar owners here in Toledo. They were however, the biggest opponents of the last smoking ban we had and were the driving force behind the new (much weaker) smoking ban. Some of the bars tried to go the "private club" route by forming an organization and charging $1 to join, then you had to be in said organization to enter their bars (where you could smoke). I have no idea how well they enforced that. At the time, they were mad because if you couldn't smoke in Toledo, you could just drive to one of the suburbs and smoke.

The same thing will happen to a smaller extent if issue 5 passes this time, except people will have to drive to Michigan to smoke in bars/restaurants. That's not really going to be an issue for people in Cleveland/Columbus, because the smokers aren't going to drive 1-2 hours+ just to be able to smoke in a bar/restaurant.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: Amused
I wouldn't vote for either. Smoking bans are a violation of private property rights.

Contrary to what the socialists would have you believe, a business is private property. The owner has the right to cater to whomever he pleases. If you don't like it, tough titties.

Notice: I am not a smoker and I despise the smell of cigarette smoke.

I see the point, but I refuse to disallow myself the pleasure of visiting places where there are smokers just because less than 25% of the population is being catered to better than the majority. I will use my vote selfishly with no regrets just as smokers selfishly light up where people who don't smoke would prefer clean air.

I truly can't fathom why so many people in America still think smoking is so damn delicious. I think of pack-a-day (or more) smokers and think "You wouldn't eat a quart of ice cream every day, you wouldn't eat a pound of french fries everyday, you wouldn't go bungee jumping or skydiving everyday, why is smoking so damn special that you are willing to do this so frequently over something that is a less of a health risk?

This has nothing to do with smokers, and everything to do with property owners and private property rights.

You do NOT have a right to enter a person's private business and demand they cater to your whims only. You are in their business by their invite. If you don't like how they run their business you are free to go elsewhere. No one is forcing you to do business with them.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Injury

It's a lot of difference when the "ME ME ME" is 75% of the ME ME ME's in the country.

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Especially in a country founded on individual rights and property rights.

You are forcing private busniess owners to cater to your whim against their will.

 

[doze]

Yes on 4 but no on 5.

4 is basically common sense and says that smoking is fine as long as you have a separate area. Issue 5 is a bit more strict.

As a casual smoker (5~6 cigs a day) currently living in a city with a smoking ban I enjoy it most of the time. I think all restaurants that are not bar and grill type places should have no smoking indoors. I think that smoking in bars or clubs should be up to the owner, and owners who do allow smoking should be required install air cleaners.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: Amused
I wouldn't vote for either. Smoking bans are a violation of private property rights.

Contrary to what the socialists would have you believe, a business is private property. The owner has the right to cater to whomever he pleases. If you don't like it, tough titties.

Notice: I am not a smoker and I despise the smell of cigarette smoke.

I see the point, but I refuse to disallow myself the pleasure of visiting places where there are smokers just because less than 25% of the population is being catered to better than the majority. I will use my vote selfishly with no regrets just as smokers selfishly light up where people who don't smoke would prefer clean air.

I truly can't fathom why so many people in America still think smoking is so damn delicious. I think of pack-a-day (or more) smokers and think "You wouldn't eat a quart of ice cream every day, you wouldn't eat a pound of french fries everyday, you wouldn't go bungee jumping or skydiving everyday, why is smoking so damn special that you are willing to do this so frequently over something that is a less of a health risk?

This has nothing to do with smokers, and everything to do with property owners and private property rights.

You do NOT have a right to enter a person's private business and demand they cater to your whims only. You are in their business by their invite. If you don't like how they run their business you are free to go elsewhere. No one is forcing you to do business with them.

Right, and I've already stated in this thread that I never said I have a right or an entitlement to it. Somehow people are getting the impression that I think that or said it. But would be very happy if I didn't have to pick and choose which establishments I patronize based on the smoke in the place. Again, I will use my vote in a manner that favors me, because it is my vote and represents me, not establishment owners, smokers, or even non-smokers.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Injury

It's a lot of difference when the "ME ME ME" is 75% of the ME ME ME's in the country.

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Especially in a country founded on individual rights and property rights.

You are forcing private busniess owners to cater to your whim against their will.

And like I said, they are more than welcome to close the doors to the public, but as long as they welcome all members of the public in, I will feel free to enter and bitch about the environment. They don't like me? They're more than welcome to tell me to stay out. I don't care.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Injury
How about this? Want a place you can smoke at? DON'T OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC. What about that one?

So business that want to allow smokers shouldn't be able to? Way to clamp down on business owners' freedom.

If smoking is so bad, then make it entirely illegal. This half-arsed, pansy, passive-aggressive "public smoking ban" sh*t is just ludicrous. For the record, I support the idea of making smoking completely illegal. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than these smoking bans. As long as cigarettes are legal to buy I think it's completely hipocritical to ban public smoking.

As far as second hand smoke is concerned, by the time it's diluted by the air it is in such low concentration as to not be harmful. The studies of second hand smoke all involve breathing in highly concentrated amounts that are never actually found in reality.

ZV

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Injury
Right, and I've already stated in this thread that I never said I have a right or an entitlement to it.

Jesus tapdancing christ, you state it in every post w/o using the word "right".

Originally posted by: Injury
How about this? Want a place you can smoke at? DON'T OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC. What about that one?

A PRIVATE BUSINESS IS NOT PUBLIC PROPERTY.

Open to the public != public property.