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 ...
I own several rental units and I have rented to Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, a Muslim with no problem at all.
However, I do not rent to smokers.
"That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world" John Adams
My apologies, I thought you were referring to the person who brought that up. Instead I now realize that you're saying I am unable to debate based upon ideas. Of course, if you at all bothered to read the context in which I said that (and the ensuing attacks by everybody else here) you might understand that.
But what the wonderful AP doesn't say is that the congress-critters are still permitted to smoke in their offices. A bar owner can't smoke in bar that he owns BUT a congressman can smoke in the office that is paid for with public funds? It's the goose/gander thing here.
Personally, I think that this is a very slippery slope that we are on with this smoking thing. If the libs can ban the use of this legal product, what is next????????
Smokers are not a protected class. You are free to do that.
Precisely what is that supposed to prove?
The landlord can deny renting to anyone for any reason they want to.......if you are denied a rental you better be able to prove you were wrongly denied.
To use your own words, discrimination is discrimination no matter how you look at it........yet you support discrimination of an owner's right to choose the clientele of his establishment.
I can't open a Cigar Bar in Delaware, not because I don't qualify for a liquor license, but because I'm not allowed to allow smoking in my bar...........is that not discrimination?
"Don't even try with this one. If you want to frustrate yourself read over the exchange I had with this individual."
I think you're confused. I'm not on YOUR side by a long shot. I'd take Madame in my foxhole over a defeatist like you in a heartbeat!
You are easily defeated by the PC Police and the Nanny Staters. Not the type we need in this debate, to say the very least. Belly up. White-flag waiver. Defeatist.
Enjoy your life in the Re-Education Camps. Oh, wait! It appears that you already instruct there, LOL! :)
Can't wait until your particular "vice" is targeted for extinction. Smoking isn't even MY vice, and even I see the Forest for the Trees. When they come for yours, or tax the h3ll out of it, you'll be singing a different tune.
You've been warned. And I'm not even the sharpest Crayon in the Box of 64! :)
Longer than you think.
On a thread yesterday, I predicted that there will soon be a movement to add smokers to classes protected in the Americans for Disabilities Act.
"Of course, if you at all bothered to read the context in which I said that (and the ensuing attacks by everybody else here) you might understand that."
Oh, No. I'm far too stupid to debate one of your superior brainpower. ROFLMAO!
And I support your right to make that decision. It is your property and for just the same reason I support your right to choose your clientele, I support the right of other businesses to do the same.
I don't think you would like it if you were told by the government you could not deny a smoker tenancy, would you?
Today, jurisdictions are making it illegal to smoke in a car with children.
In five years, you will be lucky to be able to smoke in your own back yard.
I fully expect that smokers will soon demand to be included in the ADA.
Not any smokers I know.
I'm not a whiney lib who needs big brother government to take care of me.
I am not going to take sides with the "Big Brother" here yet in my case second hand smoke definitely kills. Advanced Emphysema from 40 years of smokes.
However smoke is smoke and air is air. Would this smoking non smoking debate be any bigger if "Big Brother" passed a law saying I could not Pi$$ in someones water supply ?
Yes, I already acknowledged that you joined forces with the flighty "Madame" in insulting me. Of course, that's only to be expected from an "outside observer." That of course makes you a fraud.
One thing made sense to me in your post. You're not the sharpest.
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.