Currently, my grandfather is dying of lung cancer after smoking all of his life.  He is down to his weight when he was 19 because of the chemo.  At best, he has 3 years.

My wife's grandmother died in 2002 of lung cancer - she stopped smoking 15 years prior but the damage was done.

If you smoke, you increase your chances of death.  If you smoke for more than 20 years, you are almost certain to die from a related disease.

It's time to stop protecting the tobacco industry.  It is in our nation's interest that those industries are destroyed.  Don't outlaw smoking or tobacco - because that will create a whole new illegal drug industry.  Kill the industry through consumer protection laws.  Nobody will engage in that business if they are likely to get sued and lose tons of money.

My grandfather (the one without cancer) owns a 3000+ acre farm.  He quit growing tobacco two years ago because of regulations.  He is actually glad he stopped, even though it was a profitable crop.

Gets right to the point, doesn't it?

n/t

I'm extremely disappointed--but not in the least surprised.  It just confirms what most of us know, the lobbyists and big money contributors control the politicians.  I'm mad as hell.  We can show our support of a ban by not going to restaurants, etc., which still allow smoking, albeit in a separate area.  The smoke still goes all over via the ventilation system.  But what about the health of the employees?????

Please post the names of all the senators and delegates who voted AGAINST the ban.

subcommittee votes.  Unrecorded, you ask? Yeah, well thank the Republican House leadership for that beauty of "open government."

Can anyone figure out who's even on the House General Laws subcommittee on ABC and Gaming? I can't.

Members:

Abbitt, Watkins M., Jr.
Albo, David B.
Bowling, Dan C.
Cosgrove, John A.
Wright, Thomas C., Jr.

 

I swear that some of these Republicans will vote against anything that the Democrats propose, just on general principles.   Not exactly a very mature way to run a government.

Why would Republicans, who are always talking about how communities should have more control over everything from taxes to school curricula, opposed to letting communities make their own decisions on whether to ban smoking?

Oh wait, because they're dinosaurs who think they're doing businesses (read: donors) a favor.

that Republicans feel that an unnecessary abridgement of personal liberty.

... to blow cancer-causing smoke in my face.  Great logic.

And many private institutions that ban smoking. If you are really having a hard time finding a place to go and hangout that doesn't have smokers, let me know and I can do a few Google searches for you.

In the debate between individual responsibility and government holding everybody's hand through life, I'll pick individual responsibility.

You're going to find them new jobs, I presume?

That ban smoking. Most restaurants only allow smoking at the bar, which is removed from the rest of the store. If a worker works only in the dining hall or in the kitchen, then they would also be fine. I don't see enough here to warrant the government playing nanny.

If smokers were responsible, they wouldn't light up in a confined space where their smoke infringes on the lungs of the 80% of us that prefer clean air. The government shouldn't have to hold their hand and tell them to take it outside. But if they did that, we wouldn't need to be pushing for legislation right now, would we?

Aren't you guys advocating for a ban on all public smoking? That would eliminate your suggestion of "taking it outside", unless the outside they take it to happens to be their private property.

Second, most of the confined spaces where people smoke is seperated from other spaces. If you don't like smoke, don't go to that space. The same way if you don't like the food a restaurant serves, instead of getting the government to require them to serve you food you like, just take your business elsewhere.

If 80% of people truly prefer a 100% smoke-free environment in restaurants, then surely an establishment that features a smoking ban will be hugely popular, right? If public opinion is so overwhelmingly on your side as you claim, then the markets should easily be capable of handling the problem, and the restaurants that allow smoking would only attract those 20% of customers and lose their market share.

on all public smoking?  I doubt anyone here is advocating that, we're talking about banning smoking in restaurants and other such ENCLOSED spaces.

Again, you don't address the issue of workers - are they free to just get other jobs at other restaurants or outside the restaurant/hospitality industry?

When I responded to your post above. I didn't address workers in this post because I was responding to TGM, who did not bring up workers.

But the answer to your question is "yes". And the same thing applies to workers as it does for customers. If 80% of people prefer a 100% smoke-free environment, as was claimed above, then establishments will have a lot to gain by switching to such a format. The demand should be off the charts for it.

In Alaska, they have banned smoking in bars.  She is flying down south next week to be with my grandfather (the one dying of lung cancer because of smoking - and I'll be going to see them all also).

Anyways, she now makes 25% of what she use to because of the ban.  Nobody wants to go into the bar to drink now because smoking and drinking tend to complement each other.  

Although I am sorry my mom (who also smokes) makes less money - I hope that this prompts her to find a better job.  And I hope my grandfather's disease that WILL kill him is a wakeup call for her.

Jobs come and go - your life and health is way more important.

Apples & oranges.

Comparing not going to a restaurant because one doesn't like the food with not going there because of a disease-causing environment is simply LUDICROUS!!

Agree communities should have more control over things funded by tax dollars beacuse the "owners" are the community which supplies the tax funding

on the other hand

Resturants are Private businesses and it should be up to the "owners" to decide policy.  Also the community has the ultimate power to select what resturant to go to  

Some other examples church policy is set by congregants who supply the dollars.  The community can decide which church to go to.

Now if the state got into the resturant business then you would have more of a point

 

Let's leave it up to the "owners" to decide whether the air inside their restaurant is healthy!

But why stop there? Let's get big government out of our restaurants! Let's repeal the building codes that ensure the restaurant was constructed properly! Let's repeal fire codes that make sure everyone inside can get out safely! And let's repeal the health codes that make sure our food is handled properly! Let the free market decide whether keeping raw meat out at room temperature is a good decision!

Who's with me?

Let's get government out of everything - safety, health, labor standards, you name it! Let's repeal everything that reformers and progressives have fought for in this country for the past century or more! America will be such a glorious place when we do! (then we can drown it in the bathtub, as Grover says)

It's an agree to disagree

I guess I was brought up in a world where you take care of yourself it's not up to the government to babysit you

If you make mistakes instead of whining you pick yourself up and keep going learning from the experience and in the long run being better for it

Here is a closing thought before the twentieth century there was a much smaller federal government and Gasp everyone got along fine

If you zero out the technology and specific advances in medicine would things really be that bad today if this was still the case

I know we disagree just think about it  

You do realize that we've had labor, environmental, health and other regulations/protections in this country since at least the early 1900s, right?  Are you a pure libertarian?  Do you believe in no speed limits, traffic laws, zoning, environmental protection, etc?  Is that what you're really arguing?

What point in American history are you referring to?  And that point of history, are you sure that everyone (which is the full population) got along fine?  And what constitutes fine?  And if we roll back government to that point (whichever one you are referring to), society would adjust back to that point as well and everyone would then be doing fine?

I mean do you want to work in shirt factory in New York City in 1911 (or a mine before 1900, I forgot you said before the 20th)?  I have hard time understanding everyone was doing fine by my definition of fine.  The majority of people certainly did not live with working and living conditions we enjoy today.  So what are you referring to historically that was fine?

Before the 20th century "everyone got along fine?"  You mean, like the African Americans who were enslaved, lynched, etc?  Like the native Americans who were pushed off their land and nearly exterminated?  Like the women who couldn't vote?  Like the sweatshop workers, including children, who toiled in dangerous conditions 80 or more hours per week for miniscule wages?  Like all the people exploited by the "robber barons?"  Like...anyway, you get the idea.  Is THAT the America you want to return to, discarding all the progress we've made?  I find that really hard to believe.

This isn't a free-for-all.  Just because someone "owns" something doesn't mean they have, or should have, complete control over what happens on their property.  

What if Bar X decided they wanted to allow people to smoke pot?  Or do coke?  Any privately owned establishment is still governed by the laws of the land.

What if Bar X didn't want to install enough fire exits?  What if they didn't want to follow the food safety rules because it cost them too much money or interfered with service?  There are many safety regulations in place that must be followed no matter how ownership feels about them - and this is a good thing for all of us.

What if an owner wants to serve alcohol?  They need a liquor license - they can't just start serving because they own the bar.  More rules and regulations.

As frustrating as these rules and regs are business owners, they usually serve a good public purpose.  I'm sure you can find some exceptions, but most are for the public good and we should be grateful we have them.  

To bring it all together... second hand smoke is a proven health risk and it is in the public's best interest to restrict where exposure can occur.  

....don't allow local communities decide if they'd like to have non-discrimination ordinances or provide domestic partnership benefits to their employees....

IGNORANCE and HEARTLESSNESS!