Where does eveyone stand on smoking bans?

[RNR]

I think it should be up to the owner, and would even be willing to have it up to the owner if you have to be 21 to enter. City wide is bullshit IMO

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by Laz

oooh .... here comes the PC tough guys.

smoking ban = people are too soft and get offended too easily

pussification of America



until of course somebody says something they don't like ... then the PC tough guys turn crybaby bitch.

BS...smoking doesn't fall under PC.

IMO, it's more indicitive of a fractured family sructure of citizens parenting each other, built on years of mistrust...we can't give each other the benefit of the doubt to do the right thing, so we implement it for them.
even down to having to pre-pay for your gas..

[UteChief]

I love smoking bans. I can't stand breathing in someones second hand smoke and shouldn't have to. My Dad smoked for most of my like and when he quit he was amazed how bad smokers smelled.

[GoHuge]

Originally Posted by Spott

So what parts of KC have smoking bans now? Is it just Johnson County or is Jackson County also doing it? Are bars/clubs included or is it just restaurants?

I don't know about clubs, but it applies to all restuarant/bars (810 Zone, Tanners etc...) I live in Leawood and I know it's banned there, Lenexa, Overland Park, and almost 100% sure Olathe. So I am assuming it's a Johnson County thing. Also heard that the pro smoking people where going to try and get this on the April ballot for the public to vote on. I'd have a hard time believing it would get reversed. Every body I've talked to is thrilled about it.

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by frazod

Yeah, I knew what it meant. I like to personally apply it those who would impose their will upon others, especially people they'll never meet or interact with, for no good reason other than enforcing their will.

How strangers live their lives is not my business.

You want to have an abortion? I personally wouldn't do it, but if you want to, it has no bearing on my existence, so do what you want.

You don't want to wear a seatbeat? Fine. It's your life. Why should I care?

You don't want to wear a helmet? Go for it. Your call.

You want to to smoke someplace I don't go? Fine. I won't go there. There are other places. Or perhaps I'll go there and deal with it.

Some people believe as I do.

Some people are honestchieffan.

Because in almost every one of those cases tax revenue is spent to finance your choice or the consequences of your choice. Also, in every one of your examples, beyond the public funds being spent to subsidize your choice (typically via healthcare costs), your choice only effects you. When you smoke everyone around you is smoking whether they want to or not. You are effectively making the choice for everyone else in your vicinity.

In a vacuum I'm 100% in support of personal choice at all times. If there were a way to guarantee that your choices effected only you and that only you would be responsible for the consequences of your choices I'd say you should be able to do anything you wanted. But that's not the way our world works anymore. Unfortunately.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

Because in almost every one of those cases tax revenue is spent to finance your choice or the consequences of your choice. Also, in every one of your examples, beyond the public funds being spent to subsidize your choice (typically via healthcare costs), your choice only effects you. When you smoke everyone around you is smoking whether they want to or not. You are effectively making the choice for everyone else in your vicinity.

What if the people in my "vicinity" don't care? Do you claim to be the Official Spokesman of My Vicinity?

[Hydrae]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

FWIW, a buddy of mine owns a sports bar in a town here that imposed a smoking ban 1/1/2007.

I was there Tuesday for lunch and he told me his revenue increased by over 60% and is rising since the ban took effect. Seems the smokers stayed loyal, and dealt with the ban, while a new client base emerged from people that refused to go there before because the smoke was so bad.

Considering that only 21% of Americans smoke, I'm not sure why owners are complaining. There are 4 times as many non-smokers that could refuse to visit an establishment based on smoking being allowed, versus that small 1 in 5 they MIGHT lose when a ban takes effect.

This is the part that I don't understand. If there is a demand for non-smoking establishments (it seems there is such a demand) and all of these places are making better money since being forced to go non-smoking, are all of the business owners in this country idiots? From this kind of evidence it would seem that they all missed a golden opportunity to go non-smoking and increase their revenue. It took the government banning smoking to help their bottom line. Go figure.

This is why I think this whole argument is silly. It absolutely should be up to each business owner and the customers are then allowed to vote with their pocketbooks. From the way it sounds, if we got rid of the bans a lot of places would stay non-smoking, it is better for their bottom line.

This is certainly a freedom of choice thing. Not for the smoker vs non-smoker, it should be about the freedom of the owner to cater to the customer base they want to attract.

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by frazod

What if the people in my "vicinity" don't care? Do you claim to be the Official Spokesman of My Vicinity?

Not at all. But your vicinity is changing all the time. No one is saying you can't smoke where you have complete control over your vicinity...like at home. But where you don't have that kind of absolute control you can't realistically say you know that no one around you cares.

[alanm]

Originally Posted by cardken

It's a real simple answer, Smoking and Non-Smoking bars. I'm a casual smoker, smoke when I drink person. But I understand when you enter a bar smoking is part of the package as well as beligerant drunks. But simply post a sign out front "This is a Smoking Establishment." The "freedom loving", beer drinking, chicken finger, and pizza eaters can eat at their Sports Bars and the wine drinking, quiche, eating crowd can eat at their Sports Bistros.

Unfortunately this kind of logic doesn't seem to exist. The anti smoking Nazi's wish to impose their will on everyone regardless.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

Not at all. But your vicinity is changing all the time. No one is saying you can't smoke where you have complete control over your vicinity...like at home. But where you don't have that kind of absolute control you can't realistically say you know that no one around you cares.

Maybe like a bussiness I own?

[alanm]

I just hope that when the anti smoking Nazi's get their wish that they step up to the plate and volunteer to take on the property tax increases due lost revenue from tobacco. It's only fair.

[Spott]

Originally Posted by GoHuge39

I don't know about clubs, but it applies to all restuarant/bars (810 Zone, Tanners etc...) I live in Leawood and I know it's banned there, Lenexa, Overland Park, and almost 100% sure Olathe. So I am assuming it's a Johnson County thing. Also heard that the pro smoking people were going to try and get this on the April ballot for the public to vote on. I'd have a hard time believing it would get reversed. Every body I've talked to is thrilled about it.

Thanks. I was reading the KC Star online and saw that they are doing the same thing in Blue Springs. When they put it on the state ballot here about 5 years ago, it passed with an approval rate of over 75% so I don't see it being overturned even if it makes it on the ballot.

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

Maybe like a bussiness I own?

Haven't we already been through this? The business being privately-owned is inconsequential because it's considered a public place/space. The general public is permitted. On the other hand, if you turn it into a private club then the law looks at it differently.

C'mon, the answer is right there. If smokers and business owners have such a problem with the law, then just go private and take care of the problem.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

Not at all. But your vicinity is changing all the time. No one is saying you can't smoke where you have complete control over your vicinity...like at home. But where you don't have that kind of absolute control you can't realistically say you know that no one around you cares.

Actually, that's the next thing - the healthnazis ARE going after people's rights to smoke in their own homes. There are condominium associations and apartment buildings that don't allow smoking, so even the rights a person should enjoy in his or her own domicile are now coming under attack from these fanatic pricks. How long until that becomes law?

As for my changing vicinity, there are places where smokers congregate. If all of them are smoking, who are you to tell them they can't smoke? Again, where does that power come from?

I'm not advocating the right of somebody to blow smoke in your kid's face. I'm advocating REASON and COMPROMISE. Hell, I don't even fucking smoke anymore. But there are worse things than breathing in a wisp of smoke - like watching our country morph into a police state.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

Haven't we already been through this? The business being privately-owned is inconsequential because it's considered a public place/space. The general public is permitted. On the other hand, if you turn it into a private club then the law looks at it differently.

C'mon, the answer is right there. If smokers and business owners have such a problem with the law, then just go private and take care of the problem.

JK with you and could not help myself. I would be interested if once a ban is in place will they allow a private bussiness to ignore the law.

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by frazod

But there are worse things than breathing in a wisp of smoke - like watching our country morph into a police state.

I agree. Patriot act for starters. However...smokers make up approximately 18% of the population. We live in a democracy. Majority rule and all of that. If the non-smoking majority wants smoking gone...well, welcome to the democratic process in action.