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

[JulesMaximus]

I'm so glad I live in CA where you cannot smoke in any public building, place of business, bar or restaurant. :thumbsup:

 

[OutHouse]

why dont we just make smoking illegal.


na that wont happen, all governments make way too much money from sin taxes.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 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.

Remember that when the majority votes away a right or freedom you enjoy.

Just because it's not your bull being gored does not mean you should support the tyranny.

If everyone thought like you we'd still have Jim Crow laws because, of course how does keeping minorities down hurt the 90% white majority?

In other words, voting to pleasure yourself at the expense of the rights of others can go both ways. And I can bet you'll scream like a raped prison bitch when it happens to you.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: 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.

Please show me where I said it, let alone in every post.

Again, I did not say it was public property. Opening your doors and welcoming the public in does not mean it's public property, and I never implied that. "The public" is the people of a community. "open up to the public" does NOT mean public property.

Are you doing something else while you are reading posts, or are you just no soaking it in?

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 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.

Remember that when the majority votes away a right or freedom you enjoy.

Just because it's not your bull being gored does not mean you should support the tyranny.

If everyone thought like you we'd still have Jim Crow laws because, of course how does keeping minorities down hurt the 90% white majority?

In other words, voting to pleasure yourself at the expense of the rights of others can go both ways. And I can bet you'll scream like a raped prison bitch when it happens to you.

Yeah, and some of this I've already said, but I'd have a totally different mindset about this issue if:

1 - smoking wasn't deadly
2 - smokers gave a crap about my choice not to smoke and were more polite about it
3 - it was highly detrimental to the economic state of the establishments that I need to survive
4 - it didn't benefit me, my lifestyle, or the necessities of my life

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 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.

Remember that when the majority votes away a right or freedom you enjoy.

Just because it's not your bull being gored does not mean you should support the tyranny.

If everyone thought like you we'd still have Jim Crow laws because, of course how does keeping minorities down hurt the 90% white majority?

In other words, voting to pleasure yourself at the expense of the rights of others can go both ways. And I can bet you'll scream like a raped prison bitch when it happens to you.

Yeah, and some of this I've already said, but I'd have a totally different mindset about this issue if:

1 - smoking wasn't deadly
2 - smokers gave a crap about my choice not to smoke and were more polite about it
3 - it was highly detrimental to the economic state of the establishments that I need to survive
4 - it didn't benefit me, my lifestyle, or the necessities of my life

1 - Avoid it. No one is forcing you to smoke.
2 - Again, it's not hard to avoid. At worst you have to walk through a puff of it when going in the non-smoking building of your choice.
3 - Irrelevant.
4 - Irrelevant.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Amused
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.

See, that's your opinion, one that's not shared very widely. Since government sets the rules for businesses, it can certainly tell them what to do inside. That's not a bad thing, it just has to be used wisely. In this case (IMO) having separate smoking rooms would be a good compromise.

 

[clamum]

I'm with my man Dain on this one.

 

[jagec]

Am I the only person who is perfectly happy with smoking laws as they currently stand? I don't smoke, and I find that whenever I enter a government building, a hospital, a restaurant, a movie theater, my place of work, and, in fact, almost everywhere else, I don't have to smell smoke. On the street, I am perfectly OK with moving the extra foot or so to the side to avoid walking into someone's smoke. In bars, I kind of expect it, and if I'm really concerned I simply don't go to that bar.

Are the other nonsmokers constantly being shoved into situations where they have to inhale smoke for hours against their will? Am I just a statistical anomaly? I don't get it.

 

[buck]

Laws like this are in effect in Seattle. Let me tell you the pleasure it is now to to into a bar and not come out smelling like a bowling alley.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

privately owned establishments should control what goes on inside, not the govt
(nonsmoker)

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Injury
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.

How about this one? Want a place that doesn't have smoke? DON'T GO SOMEWHERE THAT ALLOWS SMOKING. How about that one?

This law isn't about profits, health, or anything. It's about principal. It's about rights. It's about having an actual fvcking say in your property rights. Eating at a public restaurant is a priviledge. Don't like smoke? Don't eat there. Instead, people want to FORCE everyone to change just for them while not thinking about the rights of anyone else.

 

[Todd33]

Fck smokers, make it illegal altogether. It does more harm than most illegal drugs. You want to smoke in your house, fine. I don't care what you do in your house.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Martin
See, that's your opinion, one that's not shared very widely. Since government sets the rules for businesses, it can certainly tell them what to do inside. That's not a bad thing, it just has to be used wisely. In this case (IMO) having separate smoking rooms would be a good compromise.

Separate smoking rooms? In this case (like most regulations), only the rich companies will survive because only owners who have the money to furnish the requirements for such a regulation can appease the most consumers...thus running the poorer establishments out of business which would result in less competition, which of course, is always a bad thing.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Injury
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.

How about this one? Want a place that doesn't have smoke? DON'T GO SOMEWHERE THAT ALLOWS SMOKING. How about that one?

This law isn't about profits, health, or anything. It's about principal. It's about rights. It's about having an actual fvcking say in your property rights. Eating at a public restaurant is a priviledge. Don't like smoke? Don't eat there. Instead, people want to FORCE everyone to change just for them while not thinking about the rights of anyone else.

Smoking is not a requirement. You can go somewhere and enjoy your meal or enjoy a drink without smoking.

I hate going to a place where it is smokey. I don't give a damn about the property owner's rights because they still make money. That's my opinion, and I don't give a rat's ass if you don't like it.

I live in Ohio, and I'm sure as hell voting for issue 5. You guys worry about your states.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Injury
Smoking is not a requirement. You can go somewhere and enjoy your meal or enjoy a drink without smoking.

I hate going to a place where it is smokey. I don't give a damn about the property owner's rights because they still make money. That's my opinion, and I don't give a rat's ass if you don't like it.

I live in Ohio, and I'm sure as hell voting for issue 5. You guys worry about your states.

1. Going into a restaurant isn't a requirement.
2. I know you don't give a damn about property owner's rights.
3. That's your opinion!?!? Fine, keep it to yourself, but don't force it on business owners.
4. My state has already been overrun by nanny-staters moral authoritarians.

 

[AndrewR]

The damn tobacco companies and their constitutional amendment. Ban smoking except in isolated enclaves on land owned by tobacco companies, as far as I'm concerned. Too many people around here smoke.

I still am always amazed when we walk into a restaurant with our nearly-three year old, and they ask, "Smoking or Non?" It should be child abuse to take a small child into the smoking section!

 

[Pollock]

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. 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?

I completely agree with this. Anything that cracks down on smoking is good. However unfortunately, it's not like I've ever seen smoking bans enforced anyway. I mean, who fscking goes to a track or cross country meet and starts smoking? :disgust: And then no one tries to stop them...

 

[lykaon78]

No on 4 and yes on five for this buckeye.

Isn't issue 4 exactly what we have now? Issue 5 actually has some teeth.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
The damn tobacco companies and their constitutional amendment. Ban smoking except in isolated enclaves on land owned by tobacco companies, as far as I'm concerned. Too many people around here smoke.

I still am always amazed when we walk into a restaurant with our nearly-three year old, and they ask, "Smoking or Non?" It should be child abuse to take a small child into the smoking section!

lmao. OMG dude. Letting your child watch an hour of TV a day will decrease his/her overall health way more than constant exposure to second hand smoke.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Pollock
I completely agree with this. Anything that cracks down on smoking is good. However unfortunately, it's not like I've ever seen smoking bans enforced anyway. I mean, who fscking goes to a track or cross country meet and starts smoking? :disgust: And then no one tries to stop them...

Anyone who thinks it should be the government's responsible to "crack down on smoking" is probably smoking something himself.

 

[MikeMike]

I will vote No on Issue 4, and Yes on issue 5.

i dont care that i know ppl who smoke, and i occasionally smoke.

its just THAT much better when smoking does not exist, i dont come home smelling like smoke, and i can breathe clearly.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Martin
See, that's your opinion, one that's not shared very widely. Since government sets the rules for businesses, it can certainly tell them what to do inside. That's not a bad thing, it just has to be used wisely. In this case (IMO) having separate smoking rooms would be a good compromise.

Separate smoking rooms? In this case (like most regulations), only the rich companies will survive because only owners who have the money to furnish the requirements for such a regulation can appease the most consumers...thus running the poorer establishments out of business which would result in less competition, which of course, is always a bad thing.

Yeah, every time there is some new regulation proposed we hear how the world will end. :roll:

Putting up a screen and a fan is not a hard or expensive job, and poeple won't suddenly stop drinking when the price of alcohol goes up by 10 cents a drink.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Martin

Yeah, every time there is some new regulation proposed we hear how the world will end. :roll:

Putting up a screen and a fan is not a hard or expensive job, and poeple won't suddenly stop drinking when the price of alcohol goes up by 10 cents a drink.

No, but each and every regulation and law passed slowly separates the rich from the poor.

 

[Ryan]

The indoor smoking ban passed here in FL - had I been able to vote at the time, I would have supported it.