Smokers, cigarette sellers fuming over tax that takes a pack up to at least $12.75

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

and it's unreasonable to puts certain restaurants and bars out of business because of a smoking ban. It's unreasonable to tell a private business that they cannot allow a legal social activity in their establishment. Now, I will give people restaurants on a middle ground (eventhough I disagree with the ban), but it makes no damn sense for a bar to not be allowed to have smokers, adult oriented businesses not to have smokers, etc. - If you have to be 18-21 to be in their in the first place, smoking should not be banned...

But restaurants, grocery stores, malls etc aren't simply "A Private Business" as they operate in the capacity of a "Public Place".

I never said that I agree with the entirety or the Illinois Ban which goes as far as including all Public Places and Work Places. Where I do agree with the ban is that it is saying that non-smokers shouldn't be subjected to secondhand smoke without our consent. I do think that some businesses should have had the option to remain "smoked" but that option should be limited to places like Bars.

By this logic any and all processed foods, boxed dinners, frozen dinners, televisions, computers, video game systems, having a BBQ in your backyard, advil, tylenol, etc. should be heavily taxed. All of those things can have many different health effects as well. A lot more than smoking does at that on the food side of things.

Yeah and when was the last time someone got sick from "Secondhand Video Gaming" or was killed in an auto accident because of the other driver having too much Backyard BBQ?

The issue is does it harm you only or those around you? Heck, just being alive leads to death therefore it could be argued that life is bad for you and thus should be taxed if you really want to go to such extremes.

It's a balancing act plain & simple, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

But restaurants, grocery stores, malls etc aren't simply "A Private Business" as they operate in the capacity of a "Public Place".

I never said that I agree with the entirety or the Illinois Ban which goes as far as including all Public Places and Work Places. Where I do agree with the ban is that it is saying that non-smokers shouldn't be subjected to secondhand smoke without our consent. I do think that some businesses should have had the option to remain "smoked" but that option should be limited to places like Bars.

First, even if a private business serves the public, the public does not have a right to shop/patron there. Unless the government owns it, they really don't (and should not) have a say.

Secondly on the highlighted part, you have a choice on where you patron and do not patron. No one is subjected unwillingly. You choose where live, shop, eat, etc. The idea that people need to conform to you because you do not like being around the smoke is absurd. You have a choice to be there or not be there. No one is forcing you to be. Telling a restaurant that it can't allow smoking is like telling Chick-Fil-A that they must start serving burgers too because you want to eat there for their fries, but can't enjoy it unless there's burgers to go along with it.

Yeah and when was the last time someone got sick from "Secondhand Video Gaming" or was killed in an auto accident because of the other driver having too much Backyard BBQ?

The issue is does it harm you only or those around you? Heck, just being alive leads to death therefore it could be argued that life is bad for you and thus should be taxed if you really want to go to such extremes.

It's a balancing act plain & simple, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

There is no conclusive evidence on second-hand smoke for one. Again, you have a choice to be around it.

Car accidents? Let's remove radios, food, other people, etc. from the car as well.. cmon now.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

There is no conclusive evidence on second-hand smoke for one. Again, you have a choice to be around it.

Say what??? Please do some research...

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Say what??? Please do some research...

I have over the many years. Some studies/scientists say it does, some say it doesn't, others still say they are not sure...

If anything it's more relative to a particular situation than smoking itself as well. Smoking is not harmful to everyone and even less will be harmed by second hand smoke. Genetic makeup plays a role in it all as well.

[sly_wolf 199]

Why is it that all good things are bad for you?

(I am a former smoker)

Edited July 2, 2010 by sly_wolf

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

Secondly on the highlighted part, you have a choice on where you patron and do not patron. No one is subjected unwillingly. You choose where live, shop, eat, etc. The idea that people need to conform to you because you do not like being around the smoke is absurd. You have a choice to be there or not be there. No one is forcing you to be. Telling a restaurant that it can't allow smoking is like telling Chick-Fil-A that they must start serving burgers too because you want to eat there for their fries, but can't enjoy it unless there's burgers to go along with it.

This is false logic. When all options are places that allow smoking then yes I am forced to sit in a smoke choked building if I want to dine out and even worse I must expose my children to the same smoke. Honestly, I'd even support allowing smoking section in restaurant if certain conditions were met. For example a physical barrier like a glass wall and even better keep the non-smoking section at a slightly higher air pressure than then local ambient air pressure (to prevent smoke infiltration).

I will agree that it isn't much better when all options exclude smokers from partaking of their vice but I also prefer to err on the side of caution in this case. I lived with the smoking when there wasn't an option so I don't feel for smokers who are all bent out of shape because the tide has turned against them.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

This is false logic. When all options are places that allow smoking then yes I am forced to sit in a smoke choked building if I want to dine out and even worse I must expose my children to the same smoke. Honestly, I'd even support allowing smoking section in restaurant if certain conditions were met. For example a physical barrier like a glass wall and even better keep the non-smoking section at a slightly higher air pressure than then local ambient air pressure (to prevent smoke infiltration).

The key here i want. You have no right to dine out in a certain atmosphere, just as you have no right to dine out period. Just as a smoker cannot force a business to allow smoking, a non-smoker is the same way.

There's so much danger in society when we use government to ban whatever the "in thing" to hate on is because it displaces a few people.

Also as I mentioned, there's an economic effect here as well. Many bars and restaurants in Minnesota had to shut down when the state implemented their smoking ban. It literally destroyed the 4th floor of the Mall of American when it was put into effect with the exception of "Hooters," because well....Hooters offers another vice. -- This is also not including the effect on bars where people are more likely to sit and relax and order more drinks if they can sit there and smoke as well.

I will agree that it isn't much better when all options exclude smokers from partaking of their vice but I also prefer to err on the side of caution in this case. I lived with the smoking when there wasn't an option so I don't feel for smokers who are all bent out of shape because the tide has turned against them.

I live in a city where smoking is still allowed in businesses so long as the smoking section has a separate ventalation system. Which is fair enough and understandable. We're not ones to jump the gun because some people are offended by smoke. There are plenty of establishments that make the choice to allow smoking because of this or not... 30 miles away in Dallas, they aren't so luck and smoking is outrght banned all together. It's sad and many places that used to be enjoyable to go to, aren't so much anymore, especially since it encompasses all bars/hotels/restaurants/etc..

There's a middle ground that can be found as we've found here in Fort Worth. It's absurd though to any city/state that would outright ban it.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

First, even if a private business serves the public, the public does not have a right to shop/patron there. Unless the government owns it, they really don't (and should not) have a say.

Secondly on the highlighted part, you have a choice on where you patron and do not patron. No one is subjected unwillingly. You choose where live, shop, eat, etc. The idea that people need to conform to you because you do not like being around the smoke is absurd. You have a choice to be there or not be there. No one is forcing you to be. Telling a restaurant that it can't allow smoking is like telling Chick-Fil-A that they must start serving burgers too because you want to eat there for their fries, but can't enjoy it unless there's burgers to go along with it.

There is no conclusive evidence on second-hand smoke for one. Again, you have a choice to be around it.

Car accidents? Let's remove radios, food, other people, etc. from the car as well.. cmon now.

Do you like to hang out in smokey bars?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Do you like to hang out in smokey bars?

I'm a non-smoker for one. I do enjoy having a few beers with a live band in the bar and the atmosphere it brings with it. There's something missing from the experience in places now days that have banned it outright.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I'm a non-smoker for one. I do enjoy having a few beers with a live band in the bar and the atmosphere it brings with it. There's something missing from the experience in places now days that have banned it outright.

I was a smoker in the past and I for one am quite happy with smoke free bars, clubs restaurants, etc. When you spent the night hanging out in a smoke filled room and you take a dump the next morning and it smells like smoke, it can't be good for you.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I was a smoker in the past and I for one am quite happy with smoke free bars, clubs restaurants, etc. When you spent the night hanging out in a smoke filled room and you take a dump the next morning and it smells like smoke, it can't be good for you.

you're not supposed to eat the cigarettes.

(try not smoking while taking a dump either)

Edited July 2, 2010 by Paul and Vanessa

[spookyturtle 9,466]

you're not supposed to eat the cigarettes.

(try not smoking while taking a dump either)

It was difficult at first, but I have been smoke free for 18+ years.

[SuperDuper! 230]

exactly. prices in kansas are higher than missouri, so many just go to missouri and buy them. same for gas prices.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Hopp

[Rob and Jill 82]

Where I do agree with the ban is that it is saying that non-smokers shouldn't be subjected to secondhand smoke without our consent.

You know, I always find this argument hilarious. I'll tell you why. I am a smoker. I go out of my way to be considerate for the people around me who are non-smokers. I know not everyone is this way, but I am.

I am also, a 4.5 on a scale of 1 to 5 allergic to PERFUME. I get instant migraines, will vomit, have asthma attacks and the list goes on depending on the type of perfume some overly drenched woman feels she HAS to wear in PUBLIC. I am subjected to this at resturants, doctors office, my place of employment, (the list goes on)and no matter HOW nice you are when asking to move away from these people, or how politely you ask them not to wear X brand around you, they are ALWAYS rude about it and ALWAYS inform me it's their "right" to wear perfume regardless of the health effects it causes me.

How is this different?

It's not. You can use the argument that smoking effects everyone and perfume doesn't...but then not all people exposed to 2nd hand smoke get cancer either. Every single time I have to sit there and suffer through some woman wearing a god awful amount of perfume or god awful scent of perfume, I want nothing more than to light a cigarette and blow a big puff of smoke in her face.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Rob and Jill

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You blow smoke in my face, I fart in yours. Fair exchange, no?