they just passed a smoking ban in baltimore, starting in 2008. from what i understand, there will be exemptions:

Quote :

"The city's law prohibits smoking in all public places, including bars and restaurants, bowling alleys and taxicabs. Private clubs and bars that derive 50 percent or more of their revenue from noncigarette tobacco products -- namely, cigars -- are specifically exempted."

so essentially, smokers will still have places to go. most places will be smoke free except for places that specifically cater to smokers already. this sounds reasonable.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 8:06 AM. Reason : ssed]

3/23/2007 8:06:00 AM

so the only places you can smoke are essentially cigar bars? but what about the employees at cigar bars?

also when they say "all public places" i'm guessing they DON'T mean places like a sidewalk or a park?

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 8:55 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 8:54:16 AM

i dont know about the cigar store workers. i guess they feel theres a difference in working for a place thats #1 priority is tobacco as a opposed to where its not. i dont think every issue needs to be turned into a black or white issue....theres some room for compromise. banning smoking in a regular bar isnt going to put them out of business, but banning smoking in a cigar bar or a hookah lounge probably will result in the business closing.

i dont know the exact wording of the law, but because they are talking about having smokers go outside in some of the articles ive read, i would assume that its only for enclosed areas

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 9:03 AM. Reason : d]

3/23/2007 9:02:48 AM

Quote :

"i dont think every issue needs to be turned into a black or white issue"

You just made Trollista's head explode.

3/23/2007 9:04:51 AM

Quote :

"i dont think every issue needs to be turned into a black or white issue....theres some room for compromise"

just not compromising and allowing individual bars to make their own rules

3/23/2007 9:13:34 AM

correct.

3/23/2007 9:14:46 AM

so when it comes to bars (regular bars...not cigar bars), it IS a black and white issue

3/23/2007 9:15:23 AM

well if you feel strongly about it, maybe you'll vote in your statewide elections next time.

3/23/2007 9:16:02 AM

why? you can smoke in bars in north carolina

i dont live in maryland

3/23/2007 9:17:16 AM

nope...from what i understand, baltimore is going to look at each excemption case individually to determine the course of action. like i said, there is room for some compromise as seen fit.

i have no desire to beat a dead horse with you this morning, so ill leave it at that.

3/23/2007 9:18:44 AM

are you still against this ban sober?

Quote :

"my views on politics make me against this type of regulation"

3/23/2007 9:20:38 AM

Stop trolling.

3/23/2007 9:28:44 AM

still got me on block, baldie?

why dont you show me one single post you've made in this thread that is anything BUT trolling me

3/23/2007 9:30:23 AM

Quote :

"why? you can smoke in bars in north carolina i dont live in maryland"

if people like you don't vote, this might not be the case for long.

3/23/2007 9:30:26 AM

k

3/23/2007 9:31:07 AM

let people smoke inside buildings it should be up to the owner of the place to decide what the smoking policy's are.

3/23/2007 9:32:21 AM

^it SHOULD

3/23/2007 9:33:57 AM

why? you're saying it's up to the owner to allow smoking or not, but not whether or not he allows people to walk in without shoes? or allows animals in?

3/23/2007 9:34:28 AM

Quote :

"you're saying it's up to the owner to allow smoking or not"

yes

Quote :

"but not whether or not he allows people to walk in without shoes?"

that should also be up to the owner...you think a little grill at the beach should have the same regulations as a restaurant in the city?

Quote :

"or allows animals in?"

places do currently get to decide their policy...food service is slightly different but this is also a state-to-state thing

so i do think people should be able to decide all those things, yes

why does the govt need to tell every single business every single thing they can or cant do...are people not capable of choosing how to run their own businesses? seems to have worked pretty well for the most part over the years

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 9:38 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 9:37:10 AM

public health

3/23/2007 9:38:39 AM

^Is your response any less knee-jerking than his?

3/23/2007 9:39:22 AM

his kneejerk reaction assumes people arent capable of making decision for themselves and require govt regulation whenever possible

my kneejerk reaction assumes people ARE capable of making decisions for themselves and DONT require constant govt intervention whenever possible

3/23/2007 9:40:38 AM

no, i'm saying people HAVE made a decision for themselves, through the legislature. that's how it works sometimes, and if you dont' like it, talk to your representatives. i'm not 100% behind this bill, but i don't see it as somehow unconstitutional or wrong for a state to pass a measure like this. the motivation is public health and i think that's a perfectly legitimate motivation for implementing laws in a state.

3/23/2007 9:43:03 AM

Quote :

"i'm saying people HAVE made a decision for themselves, through the legislature"

so they cant just make a personal decision about which restaurant to eat at or which bar to drink at? they dont have the freedom to run a business as they choose? i mean sure cigarettes are bad for you...but they're also legal

i wonder if you have kids if you will prevent them from playing sports or riding a bicycle since they might get hurt

3/23/2007 9:45:57 AM

^^^ The line has to be drawn somewhere. Hence we have building codes, etc. The government does have the responsibility to protect us from one another. Where exactly this legislation fits in that is most definitely up for debate.

Incidentally, I'm against this legislation as it stands. Not because smoking in private spaces that are open to the public isn't a problem, but because I don't think it's as blanket an issues as they make it out to be.

We had a discussion here at the office where the idea that perhaps it could be part of the Sanitation grades... some air quality indication on the same sign (ie: if it's a smoking establishment, everyone knows, and if it's a smoking establishment with good seperation, good air filtration etc, everyone knows that too) It's a win-win and there are already departments in place to handle it.

3/23/2007 9:50:13 AM

^^no. those things are actually GOOD for one's health, and relatively safe if you're not stupid about it.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 9:50 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 9:50:16 AM

so if something is bad for your health, you shouldnt have the freedom to do it anyway, assuming its legal?

why the fuck not?

why not ban tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, etc?

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 9:52 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 9:51:41 AM

Quote :

"no, i'm saying people HAVE made a decision for themselves, through the legislature. that's how it works sometimes, and if you dont' like it, talk to your representatives. i'm not 100% behind this bill, but i don't see it as somehow unconstitutional or wrong for a state to pass a measure like this. the motivation is public health and i think that's a perfectly legitimate motivation for implementing laws in a state."

Twista just wishes the government would get out of the way of his desire for a country of smoked out stoners that are as stupid and illogical as he is!!!

And he even votes to try to make this happen!

3/23/2007 9:52:13 AM

State409c is still mad that his favorite bar banned steroids

3/23/2007 9:52:46 AM

I miss the pre-9-11 Soap Box.

3/23/2007 9:54:21 AM

Quote :

"We had a discussion here at the office where the idea that perhaps it could be part of the Sanitation grades... some air quality indication on the same sign (ie: if it's a smoking establishment, everyone knows, and if it's a smoking establishment with good seperation, good air filtration etc, everyone knows that too) It's a win-win and there are already departments in place to handle it."

Very interesting idea indeed, especially considering some bars are definitely worse than other bars.

The only thing about that is how is it actually measured? That is, if this is really about second hand smoke, and a table of 4 lights up behind me after their meal, then I am going to be in a higher concentration of smoke than a table 3 down from me that doesn't have any smokers or heavy smokers around them.

3/23/2007 9:56:10 AM

Quote :

"so if something is bad for your health, you shouldnt have the freedom to do it anyway, assuming its legal?"

point is: smoking hurts more than just the people who take part in the act.

3/23/2007 9:56:44 AM

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 9:57 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 9:56:50 AM

Quote :

"i'm saying people HAVE made a decision for themselves, through the legislature. that's how it works sometimes, and if you dont' like it, talk to your representatives."

the issue here is: Do people have a right to smoke? Non-smokers have always had the right to choose whether they wanted to go to a smoking establishment....if this passes, it is essentially saying smokers don't have a right to smoke @ an establishment, even if the owners want to allow it

I see it as taking rights away from smokers and more importantly business owners = bad. I was in support of the ban that would not affect private establishments, but this is too much imo.

3/23/2007 9:58:16 AM

^^^^ There isn't truely a way to say "the air quality in this establishment will always be X" just like the Sanitation Grade of 100 doesn't mean that the establishment isn't filthy several weeks or months later.

It's not perfect, but it's an improvement.

3/23/2007 9:59:08 AM

^^then talk to your representative. i can see this as a grey area and can understand people disagreeing with it. but i don't see how people can view the law as fundamentally unconstitutional or anything.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 9:59 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 9:59:35 AM

Quote :

"I see it as taking rights away from smokers and more importantly business owners = bad. I was in support of the ban that would not affect private establishments, but this is too much imo."

It isn't taking rights away from smokers. They are still free to smoke, just in a location where their smoke isn't effecting someone else. Giving them the right to smoke essentially takes away my right to clean air.

3/23/2007 10:00:30 AM

Quote :

"the issue here is: Do people have a right to smoke? Non-smokers have always had the right to choose whether they wanted to go to a smoking establishment....if this passes, it is essentially saying smokers don't have a right to smoke @ an establishment, even if the owners want to allow it I see it as taking rights away from smokers and more importantly business owners = bad. I was in support of the ban that would not affect private establishments, but this is too much imo."

what rights? Smoking isn't a right. Let's not make this out to be a battle about self-determination.

and places with private rooms are allowed to have up to 20% smoking under this law. I wish people would actually read the bill before they complain about it.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 10:02 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 10:01:23 AM

^^you always had the right not to choose to visit a location where you know there is smoking.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 10:01 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 10:01:29 AM

Quote :

"but i don't see how people can view the law as fundamentally unconstitutional or anything."

because you're telling a private business owner "even though tobacco is legal to buy and use in this state and country and city, we are telling you that you cannot use tobacco in your own business in the building that you own"

how can you not see how people can view the PROPOSED law as fundamentally unconstitutional?

Quote :

"what rights? Smoking isn't a right"

neither is dictating what goes on in someone else's private business...you DO however have the FREEDOM to, i dunno, GO TO WHICHEVER BARS OR RESTAURANTS YOU CHOOSE TO GO TO OR NOT TO GO TO

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 10:03 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 10:02:59 AM

This isn't a concern about non-smokers. this is a concern about employees at those establishments.

the state has there and obligation to regulation business.

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 10:03 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 10:03:04 AM

Quote :

"^^you always had the right not to choose to visit a location where you know there is smoking."

But your right to smoke is infringing on my right to clean air in any location where I might be.

3/23/2007 10:03:05 AM

Quote :

"But your right to smoke is infringing on my right to clean air"

you have just as much right to smoke as you do to clean air considering neither is explicitly in the constitution

Quote :

" in any location where I might be."

that doesnt include my property

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 10:07 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 10:05:43 AM

Quote :

"Despite opposition to previous anti-smoking legislation, the North Carolina Restaurant and Lodging Association doesn't plan to fight the smoking ban. Executive director Paul Stone said the group just wants to make sure bars and restaurants are treated the same."

this is dumb too. the first bill allowed exemptions for private clubs, and the association didn't support because they said it would create an unfair advantage.....but if non-smokers are such a force, they could easily keep establisments thriving, right? While the smoking bars customer base would centralize the problem demographic.

Seems like a win, win to me. That bill was very reasonable, but this one is not imo.

Quote :

"But your right to smoke is infringing on my right to clean air in any location where I might be."

most smoke free places advertise accordingly. if its that important to you, you won't just "wander" into a smoking bar

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 10:07 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 10:05:57 AM

no, it's not about smokers and non-smokers. it's about the employees of those establishment.

3/23/2007 10:07:53 AM

again, they know what they are getting into. Nobody forces them to work there.

3/23/2007 10:08:36 AM

what if all the empoyees smoke and dont want their restaurant / bar to be non smoking? do you just say "fuck you, the govt knows whats best for you"

3/23/2007 10:09:21 AM

Who smokes while working?

3/23/2007 10:10:51 AM

people take smoke breaks

point is, if all the employees that nutsmackr is concerned about protecting do smoke and want their bar/restaurant to allow smoking...then who exactly is the govt protecting? if the employees are smokers...and the law is to protect employees...its to protect them from themselves? in an instance like that why cant the individual bar make their own decision?

how come??

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 10:19 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2007 10:11:33 AM

Quote :

"No one is ever going to suffer from secondhand salt or caffine [sic] intake."

HockeyRoman

One could argue that salt, caffeine, sugar, and fat--among other things--contribute to the poor diet of individuals in our society. These poor diets lead to increased health-care costs for everyone and an out-of-shape population, which has national security implications. Seeing these alarming situations, an overzealous and Utopian politician could introduce legislation to reduce, replace, or eliminate all "dangerous" foods and ingredients.

Don't tell me that this can't happen--it is already happening. Ever heard of lawsuits against fast-food restaurants just for serving their product? Ever heard of the Center for Science in the Public Interest? Who the fuck are these people? Nobody's saying, but they're all over the media. Witness the following quotation from CSPI's mission statement:

Quote :

"In the regulatory arena, our petitions, comments, and participation in meetings are designed to encourage the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to tighten federal food safety programs and increase oversight of industry practices."

http://www.cspinet.org/foodsafety/

This is why I quoted the character from the Demolition Man movie. The movie depicts a futuristic yet fascist form of government that "enhances calm" by making anything unhealthy illegal. Make no mistake--this can happen.

Be well, HockeyRoman.

3/23/2007 11:20:28 AM