JJ5

BRAVO, bennnie.

bugswife1

Doesn't it all come down to responsibility? I don't care if you smoke outdoors or smoke at home. Not saying there should be a ban on smoking, just where it can be done without harming others. But smoking in a confined area is not responsible when other people are involved. Same with alcohol. By all means, have a drink. But if you are not drinking at home, have a designated driver. Alas, not all of us are responsible and that is why we now have this issue.

suzanne

This is just unbelievable. Anyone who thinks alcohol is remotely as addictive as nicotine is not very well informed And in case anyone forgot, it IS illegal to drink and drive.

bennnie

JJ5 - we do tend to be on the same page about such things.

bennnie

Regardless of how illegal it is to drink and drive, people do it every day of the week. The legality of drinking and driving is no consolation to the family of a person killed by a drunk driver.

The question is about the substance itself. We are quickly approaching the point where tobacco will be banned completely. And then we will start to hear the drum beats for the ban of alcohol and then probably sugar and then fat in food and then what? Do we want to live in a society where the government is a paternalistic overseer of all of our daily choices? Do we want to live in a world with no chocolate?

I had a long conversation with my preteen daughters last night about making good choices. It started with a discussion about smoking, looped around to drugs, alcohol, behavior with boys and girlfriends, overeating and ended with making a choice to finish your homework before watching tv. The recurrent theme was making the hard decision today to do what's right will make life easier tomorrow.

I believe in a society where individuals must make their own hard decisions about their lives and not give in to indulgences including smoking (except chocolate because I really like chocolate). I don't want Big Brother watching me.

But hey, how about those Sox!

jorr

bennie, "We will become a society of people who wait for the government to save us from everything"

We ARE the government. Elected officials work for US. The government consists of WE and US. WE aren't putting up with public smoking anymore. I voted for our Township Chairman. He works for me and us and he is not a higher power from Mars who I am looking toward to save me from myself.

Civics 101

bennnie

Jorr - Excellent point. Yes we are the government.

So then the question is what type of person do you vote for? Someone who believes that government must save the public from itself or someone who wants the government out of our homes/bedrooms/wallets? No easy answers to be sure.

I think those Sox just aren't going to do it this year.

jorr

Bennie, Neither. The Township Chairman, County Administrator, County Sheriff, State rep., US rep., Governor, and President are not invited into my home and all of them are employees of myself and my neighbors. They All answer to me and my neighbors and none of them are invited into my bedroom. If someone wants to smoke their brains out in their own home that's their right.

If some jerk is smoking in my work place I expect that the people I chose to represent me will stop the smoking. That is one reason why they are there and one reason why I voted for them.

SAnParis

As an occasional cigar-smoker my mantra has always been if you don't care for the smoking, go somewhere else. There are plenty of options available. I certainly enjoy 'smoke-free' dining but there are some places where it should almost be required (a Morton's for instance, or a French cafe). My biggest concern is of additional Gov't interference in our personal choices...Where does one draw the line ?? Big Brother seems to keep getting bigger, if you know what I mean.

crefloors

If anyone thinks that those guys in Washington have any concern for any of us, you are living in a dream world. They are the big bunch of self serving jerks. But back to the question at hand..everyone panics when a no smoking ban is put into place and actually I think in the end, it's not that big a deal. Everyone thought all the bars in SF would have to close there doors when the no smoking went into effect and I don't think it really changed anything except you don't have smoke going up your nose from the butt in the ash tray next to you. Having said that..I, like some others here, still have some problems with legislating everything. I don't want to live in a neighborhood where a committee tells me what color I can or can't paint my house and can make me take the tree out of my front yard because it doesn't "fit" with the CC & R's. However, some people buy houses in that neighborhood BECAUSE of the rules. I do hope my next door neighbor doesn't paint his house florescent orange, but, I'll risk it.

SamH

While I don't have much opinion on whether a place is smoke free or not, I do have concerns about our government making rules that do not seem to be consistent. And, considering that there is no end to the do-gooders out there, yes, alcohol will also one day become a target.

Bennie, I don't know which sox you are referring to, but I see that my Tribe is a game and a half ahead of the red ones and a game and a half behind the white ones.

jorr

SAnParis, and the mantra for the rest of us is put out that damn cigar.

jal716

You can't smoke at a restaurant or bar in Florida that serves food. It is HEAVEN. Hasn't hurt businesses at all and it is wonderful. It is great coming home and not having to wash your hair the second you walk in the door.

Sue_xx_yy

There are advantages to having some places being designated smoking areas. For example, the hospitals where I live are smoke-free, but the sidewalks 20 feet in front of them are littered with butts. It's also startling to see patients, some clad in little more than pjs and dressing gown/house coats, standing in freezing weather having a smoke. As much as I like the idea of smoke-free hospitals, I would like to see proper waste receptacles nearby for cig butts, and some kind of weather shelter, howsoever rudimentary, for hospital patients that are already addicted smokers.

Regarding the alcohol-versus-cigarette debate, I can see the concern some have of government becoming too invasive. The difference may lie in that it is difficult to keep cigarette smoke a strictly private affair, by virtue of the air being somewhat communal space. There are also precedents regarding industrial air pollution, on the grounds that sooner or later, industrial smoke is discharged into a common atmosphere. This might be the sticking point legislators have when it comes to allowing businesses such as restaurants and bars to mandate on their own whether smoking can take place within their establishments - that sooner or later, the air will be exhausted into public domain.

On the other hand, pollution of common domain is less of an issue for substances that are ingested directly, such as alcohol or pills, or, for that matter, substances that are injected - from insulin to heroin.

highbay

This isn't about outlawing smoking...it's about outlawing it in public buildings. Geez, I feel sorry for the soul that can't wait for an hour to have one outside. I agree with everyone else that prefers not to inhale someone else's smoke while eating.
Before the smoking ban in Florida, I can't think of a restaurant in my county that was completely smoke-free. Many business owners thought they would lose revenue with this ban, but there has not been any drop off of business.
Everyone knows that they have to step outside to puff.