Posted on 01/21/2007 5:56:10 AM PST by NJRighty
RENO, Nev. (AP) - Thirty years after it began as just another quirky movement in Berkeley, Calif., the push to ban smoking in restaurants, bars and other public places has reached a national milestone.
For the first time in the nation's history, more than half of Americans live in a city or state with laws mandating that workplaces, restaurants or bars be smoke-free, according to Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights.
''The movement for smoke-free air has gone from being a California oddity to the nationwide norm,'' said Bronson Frick, the group's associate director. ''We think 100 percent of Americans will live in smoke-free jurisdictions within a few years.''
Seven states and 116 communities enacted tough smoke-free laws last year, bringing the total number to 22 states and 577 municipalities, according to the group. Nevada's ban, which went into effect Dec. 8, increased the total U.S. population covered by any type of smokefree law to 50.2 percent.
It was the most successful year for anti-smoking advocates in the U.S., said Frick, and advocates are now working with local and state officials from across the nation on how to bring the other half of the country around.
In a sign of the changing climate, new U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi banned smoking in the ornate Speaker's Lobby just off the House floor this month, and the District of Columbia recently barred it in public areas. Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Louisiana and New Jersey also passed sweeping anti-smoking measures last year.
(Excerpt) Read more at kpic.com ...
Let me get this straight, because you smoked for 40 years and developed emphysema, the private property rights of everyone else should be abridged?
Then all restaurants should be restricted to serving no sugar and all meals should be less than 500 calories, because the morbidly obese Type II diabetics shouldn't have to read the menu.
I think you had better pick up your dictionary.
It's interesting to see someone complain about, yet advocate the same thing.
They have drugs for that now.
I choose to rent to Walgreen's.
Whatever Walgreen's allows is fine with me.
So how does any privately-owned business fit that definition?
I made it very clear I was not taking sides in the "Big Brother" thing and you are assuming I did so.
I only asked if the debate would be as great as a debate if big brother passed a law that disallowed me from Pi$$ing in your water supply.
I smoked and caused my own problems. I asked a question. Lets make it point clear. Anti smoking is none of my business. Would you like for the Feds to make it illegal for me to pi$$ in your water supply ?
I think you had better pick up your Constitution.
Is smoking referenced in the Constitution?
Seriously, though, you need to understand what tyranny is to understand that banning smoking altogether (something I do not support) would be far from it.
Yes, it is, along with bicycle riding, playing darts, and a million other things one might choose to do.
Seriously, though, you need to understand what tyranny is to understand that banning smoking altogether (something I do not support) would be far from it.
I seriously can't believe that you began that sentence with "seriously".
Hey people it started with smoking bans and now you see what is going on in NYC with trans fats. This nanny state ideas of what they think is good for us will only get worse. You will see non-beef establishments and so on. Yeah many people favor the non-smoking areas but this is only the tip of the iceburg.
It is? Wow. I must have missed that. Until smoking is either classified as a private and individual act (which it, in public, is not) or smokers are classified as a protected group, there is actually no constitutional right to smoke.
Seriously.
If you were to urinate in the water pitchers with the permission of restaurant owner and the customers noted the unusual taste of the water, I'd bet that the restaurant would lose business and the government would not have to step in.
On the other hand, the smoke in the restaurant is more easily identifiable to those who wish to avoid it than the urea in the drinking water.
Actually, I gave a relevant analogy: should restaurants be forced to only serve limited-calorie meals because diabetics will be harmed by high calorie meals? How about mandating that the calorie counts be published in the menu?
Or, as in New York City, the city could ban certain ingredients.
See my #135.
Most people will be harmed by a life-time of repeated exposure to high-calorie meals, so the calorie content of establishments regulated by the health department should look at the menus.
Hey! You can have it! :)
I was AFK for awhile, and just got back and playing ketchup. You are more then welcome to take it for your own.
Each of the above government regulations are instituted to protect the public safety or at least the perceived public safety. Thus as long as their is a perceived public safety threat from ETS there will continue to be smoking bans.
The stark reality is that within 10 years there will no be a jurisdiction in the U.S. where there are not smoking bans.
Ok, so what about the industry that produced big air purifiers for bars and restaurants that will suck the rug right off of your head?! I know of such a person that marketed and sold these huge air purifiers. He has had to foreclose on his home because all of these people have lost their jobs because of the smoking bans.
Air purifiers were the way to go, in order to have a smoking section and a non smoking section. Just like the big Casino's in Las Vegas. The air is like glass. You have to look around to see if anyone is smoking because the air purifiers are sucking out the smoke and what other BO might abound.
But these air purifiers weren't good enough for the highly paid professional anti-smokers and now all their little pinions that have been duped to believe that second hand smoke and smokers have got to go.
Well, you believe what you want about getting rid of smokers, but I don't think it's going to come in your time or the time of your choosing. Cigarettes are legal and that's a fact.
Millions of us choose to smoke and we don't want to be around you anymore then you want to be around us.
If you think it's ok to force a business to close and to conform American's into the mold of your choosing, just because you don't want to see people smoking, you are a lot more addicted then any smoker will EVER be!
Taken from a letter to the Editor in LA:
All citizens do NOT have any "right" to breathe clean air. If we did, then all planes, automobiles, trucks, factories, and breweries (the source of toxic poisons in the air) would be banned. Only then could everyone "breathe truly clean air".
The Report by the Surgeon General, Richard Carmona, who is a self-described rabid anti-smoker, does not show any "new evidence" as they claim. As the Report itself states, it is merely a compendium of previous reports and biased "studies" written by and/or paid for by the anti-smoker industry. No new studies, no new evidence.
No one has ever died from being around secondhand smoke but this conveniently escapes the anti-smoker zealots. Coronary heart disease is usually genetic in origin, but it's politically correct nowadays to claim that secondhand smoke is the culprit. Never mind that no unbiased, scientific study has ever proven that secondhand smoke has ever caused anyone any harm; the real truth isn't on their agenda.
The anti-smoker campaign has never been about health, it's always been about power and control by The Nannies (along with millions of dollars for the anti-smoker and pharmaceutical industries).
OSHA and the Environmental Health Department prove secondhand smoke is NOT a health hazard.
500 ug (OSHA safe level) divided by 3.3 ug (median reading Applebees) = measured airborne nicotine* levels are 152 times safer than OSHA regulations ie. In other words NO HEALTH HAZARD as per OSHA workplace indoor air quality standards.
(snip)
There is no recognized safe level of exposure to all the substances of secondhand smoke.
That however, is a disingenuous statement, every harmful substance known to mankind has a safe level of exposure......it's called OSHA permissible exposure limits. And if you believed that false premise, no recognized safe level of exposure, we would have to ban drinking water due to the level of arsenic naturally present. We would have to ban the very air we breathe due to the CO2 levels present. (CO2 is fatal at a 20% concentration but with every breath we inhale a 4% concentration).
Secondhand smoke does not rise to the level of being a hazard, as proven scientifically. Therefore even though you may be offended by the smell of tobacco smoke; no government entity has the authority to ban secondhand smoke on the argument of public health hazard - that is a disingenous argument.
Did you notice the pro-smoking ban lies and rhetoric have become more vocal in the media lately? They are frantically trying to defend the indefensible. Perhaps another $100 million from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation would help.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.