Public smoking foes target the holdouts/MASS

The Boston Globe ^ | May 30, 2002 | Paul E. Kandarian

[SheLion]

On a state map on the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program's Web site, a white splotch covers an ever-shrinking clot of communities south of Boston where smoking in public places is still allowed.

The spot - encompassing 14 towns and the city of Brockton - is circled by communities that have either full or partial bans on smoking in restaurants and bars.

[Madame Dufarge]

The smokers don't care.

So every single one of the smokers doesn't use the ashtray?

That's about as believable as your assertion that not a single employee ever tosses his food wrapper on the ground.

[Madame Dufarge]

And once all the bars go non-smoking, you're going to staying home a lot.

I do already, and it doesn't bother me a bit. I find the company of smokers generally more enjoyable than whiners, so I'm not missing much.

I can't wait until the alcohol Nazis start to pester and demonize the non-smoking bar patrons about their booze consumption.

[ozone1]

Have some fun, let the Mass Department of Health
have your opinion on smoking
Get outraged "about smoking".com

[ozone1]

Click on "voices"

[SheLion]

And once all the bars go non-smoking, you're going to staying home a lot.

I am like Madame Dufarge. If the last three bar/restaurants stop smoking up here, they will have seen the last of us.

We will just have more parties at home, and in our yard in the summers. I have over 500 CDs, disco lights and a big enough place for dancing. No problem!

And plenty of ashtrays and 4 HEPA air purifiers. And guess what: when my friends come and drink, dance and have fun, they won't even have to leave a tip.

Let the 12 members on the City Council and Board of Health keep the business's going! It's their fault all of this happened in the first place.

[ozone1]

Party in Caribou, ROAD TRIP

[SheLion]

wheezer, your sure right! There SHOULD be places for family's with kids to go and not worry about drinking or smoking.

BUT - there should be places for adults who don't want kids around and WHO want to be around smoking and drinks.

[SheLion]

metesky! Excellent letter. Good for you! I can't believe they are using the same tired old figure of 53,000 for second hand smoke deaths that they have used for years about smokers. Now, lets talk about this:

If 53,000 smokers die a year and 53,000 non smokers die a year from second hand smoke, the United States is going to die off in a big hurry, don't you think?

Also, let me let you in on something else: The American Cancer LIED when they put out that 53,000 death figure:

American Cancer Society Admits "Mistake" in Ad

53,000 deaths caused from second hand smoke?

American Cancer Society Admits "Mistake" in Ad

The anti-smoking zealots believe they can get away with saying or doing anything if the subject is smoking. This proves they can't if we remain vigilant.

The claims that second hand smoke causes 53,000 deaths can no longer hold up due to the report by the CDC.

[SheLion]

Party in Caribou, ROAD TRIP

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh LOL!

[Bella_Bru]

What these laws end up creating is a nice situation for politicians and cops to make extra pocket change. There are plenty of them that are more than willing to accept money out here to keep quiet and look the other way at bars and clubs that refuse to comply with the no smoking laws.

[SheLion]

I LOVE this:

When the anti's come in here that live in California, and they say there is no smoking and it's not hurting business, well, guess what! Here is the article telling us WHY! They still SMOKE in the bars out there. LOL!

California Smokers Use Prohibition Tactics to Get Around Ban

"But many patrons are still lighting up at bars that secretly accommodate their habit."

"While cops try to sniff out the worst offenders, in many cases they're butting up against organized opposition. Bartender phone trees warn each other of impending busts, powerful fans blow away tell-tale scents of "smokin' in the boys room" and tin cans double as ashtrays in case of an unexpected visit by police."

[ozone1]

Last year in Maine, the Department of Public Health
sent violation notices for smoking to all licensed restaurants in an
effort to obtain additional $$$$$$$$. It was a
$100.00 fine. They collected it from most of the chains
and larger restaurants who figured it was cheaper to
pay it than to fight it. A local resaurant tried to
fight it with the Dept of Public Health to no avail,
it took a phone call from the local state rep to shut
them up.

[Madame Dufarge]

Thanks. That was fun.

Very cathartic.

[Madame Dufarge]

By the way, I just went back and checked.

Apparently my "voice" wasn't up to their standards so they decided to disappear it.

How surprising.

[Just another Joe]

If a bar owner should have the right to make his bar a smoking bar, then any other employer should also have the right to allow who he pleases on his property.

The bar owner is not discriminating as to who can come in his bar by allowing smoking. If a nonsmoker decides to not come in his bar that is his decision.

[SheLion]

it took a phone call from the local state rep to shut them up.

Boy, I wish I had known about that. You guys living in southern Maine have to keep me up on this stuff.

Once I hear about it, it's too late.

[LaineyDee]

People should be able to seek work without having to pass up employment because they do not want to breath tobacco smoke.

Problem is...that some think they have a "right" to work in a privately-owned establishment and impose their will and/or personal preferences... on that owner. It's NOT.

[Just another Joe]

Thank you for noticing that there is no "right to work".
That's a problem that I have noticed with many that are against tobacco smoke on this forum.

[Centurion2000]

Alcohol is bad for you, why not ban alcohol in bars?

They tried that in the early 20th Century and created a multi-billion dollar black market with real machine gun gangsters.

Of course if they ban cigarettes I'm probably going to become a smuggler of them. Demand is WAY too high not to.

[Squawk 8888]

Every non-smoker has to put up with the lousyproductivity of the smoker going outside to smoke and letting someone else do the work.
You can blame that one on the antis. Before the laws were imposed on workplace smoking we never had to leave our desks.

In addition, smokers are absent more often and for longer periods of time, on average, than non-smokers.
I would defy you to cite a source for that claim. The ones in my office with the highest absentee rates are parents. Those of us who are childless, smokers and non-smokers alike, are stuck picking up the slack.

Would you let employers charge higher health insurance premiums to smokers versus non-smokers.
Only if they also charge higher premiums for those who are overweight and/or have children. They run up more medical expenses in a year than I do in ten.

Also, ever place I have worked, the smokers create huge "butt" mess in their smokng area.
Ashtrays on their desks would solve that.

Of course, smokers could demand a lower deduction for pensions since they, on average, will not be around as long to collect.
My father and his ten siblings all smoke like chimneys. My dad is 72 and none of his siblings died younger than 70.