In RI tomorrow
 

the public smoking ban begins.... horray for my lungs !!!:happy: :happy: :happy:

Horray for all the non-smoking waitstaff and bartenders who dont have to get 2nd hand smoke while they earn a living everyday.

Hooray for having to stand out in the cold and hurriedly smoke my cigarette...wait, what am I talking about? Boo! Establishments should at least have an option of allowing smoking or not. That way any staff or customers with beef about secondhand smoke can go elsewhere.

I agree, I think it sux....You should have the choice. Time to find yourself a nice private club..We have the same deal here in MA, and I think it sux.......:mad:

How about the people that have a beef w/ clean air go elsewhere.

As tough as job hunting is you expect staff to refine their job search even more just so they can experience clean air.....How about a little self-control on a smokers part and let people enjoy a meal or a couple of drinks without having to smell smoke.:mad:

It isn't going to kill anybody to go outside to have a smoke.

I dont smoke nor do i really care for people who do but if someone owns a "private buisness" like a bar or club and they dont mind if thier customers smoke whats the problem? If people dont like the smoke no one is forcing them to go or work at that place right? If you dont like it then leave. There are plenty of places to go that are smoke free if thats your thing ( its certainly my thing) If a private buisness wants to have smoking who are we to say they cant?

That "Private Business" serves "The Public" it is not private. Private is in your home or in a private members only club.

anyplace that I can just walk into with my family is public not private.

Pretty sure class c?? or whatever is exempt from the ban for another 2 years. Think its bars that serve only liquor maybe?

I'm with you BB! Seems like we are slipping down a slippery slope with the government telling us what we can and cannot do. This second hand smoke business is a bunch of BS and they know it. It's just an excuse to pander to their tree hugging, fern eating, panty-wearing, left wing constituants. The problem is how do you stand up in the legislature, or any where else for that matter, and make a logical argument for it?
The best argument is based on civil rights, which nobody seems to give a damn about as long as its not them thats affected. ]

First they came for the smokers, and I did nothing. Then they came for the hunters, I did nothing. Then they came for the fishermen, I did nothing. When they came for the for me, there was nobody left to do anything...

Second hand smoke is no Joke. I lost a family member to Lung Cancer and they never smoked a day in their life. The family member was a bar owner for 20 years.

a bunch of BS???? why should I have to breath your cancer causing fumes while I'm trying to eat breakfast at a Breakfast Joint??? thats just rude and I'm all for it :D

At a bar is one thing, but in a resteraunt where there are kids and people out to enjoy themselves is another.

Doesn't matter whether the whole second hand smoke is a lot of BS or not. The smoke stinks, it gets in your hair, it gets in your clothes, and its just plain gross.


as far as the government getting involved they wouldn't have had to if smokers had the courtesy to realize that non-smokers don't need to smell this when they are out having dinner.


If I walked up to one of you guys in a restaurant and asked you if you could please not smoke while i'm eating you'd probably tell me to Kiss your A$$ and light up anyways.....Thats why the government had to get involved.


How about if I filled up on the "Beans and Cabbage" special and just sat next to you Cracking'em off until you couldn't stand the stink....you'd probably tell me to knock it off to.

"It's just an excuse to pander to their tree hugging, fern eating, panty-wearing, left wing constituants. The problem is how do you stand up in the legislature, or any where else for that matter, and make a logical argument for it?"


My grandfather is as Right wing as you can go and I bet he favors this law.. Where the bloody hell would you get that argument from? Do you follow politics at all? Politics didnt control this desicion, the fact that people should be able to work in a second hand smoke-free environment is what the bill is based on, worker saftey, not left vs. right politics... If you happen to to notice this bill passed under a Rep. Gov. here in RI...

I understand smoking is an addiction, people smoke, thats the way it is, and thats fine it is your body, in fact if the gov't didnt make $$$ off the taxes they may have been banned much earlier than now.... do what you want, in your own home, but why should I go out for a beer with friends and come home having to wash my jacket and hat because it reeks and have the added effect of second hand smoke...

Go smoke your pack a day, when I'm rock hopping at 70, you can be wheezing behind me if you live that long...

And by the way, I've never eaten a fern in my life, nor worn panties.. what that has to do with this is beyond me..

I played in bands for years in bars that were so full of smoke I could barely breathe, I would get super sinus headaches from all the smoke. My lungs hurt the next day. I did not imagine this stuff.
You have no right to have your "hobbies" affect the health and comfort of others. If so, I'll move next store to you and blast my stereo all night,, whats the differnece? You can;t complain. You dont like it, move. Its my house right?

I for one would never smoke near anyone eating . I dont like it when I eat either . Ive been a smoker for 32 years .

I think the law sucks , just like the one here in Ct . If smoking is so bad make it illeagal altogther . Oh no its a good means for more taxes ! It should be left up to the bar owners and the patrons . If you dont like to smoke go to the bar down the street . kinda like the same reason we have gay bars .
Now in restaurants, theaters , and office buildings I could understand and live with that law . you cant smoke but sure have another drink then drive home . which is worse ? In the town I live in you cant smoke in parks even in the open sky . Its just a little too much in my opinion .

smokers have rights too !

If smokers do not care about there health they are going to care even less about non-smokers health. Therefore, go outside and enjoy whats the big deal. I'll save your seat.

Guys there are tradeoffs to each. I for one do not smoke. Last year Mass enacted the smoking ban. It is a great feeling to be able to go in any restaurant or bar and not have to worry about smoking or wake up in the morning reeking like ass and having a sore throat. I went to Foxwoods last week and I was blown over by the amount of smoke in that place. It was horrible.

On the other hand it really puts a damper on the bars buisness. My family owns a Liquor store and we obviously have many customers who freguent bars. They say they hardly go anymore because they don't want to have to stand outside in the rain or cold to smoke.

Love the smoking ban up here in MA:happy: :happy:

I don't drink, but I certainly can't (nor would I if I could) walk into a bar and request the taps be shut off because I can't stand the stench of THAT wretched poison. And by the way, on the scale of loss of life and human suffering, alcohol has caused, is causing, far more trouble, and is far more deadly than tobacco. No one was ever assaulted, arrested, PC 'ed, murdered, raped, etc., etc. under the influence of a Marlboro.

I will concede the point that smoking is a bad health risk.
I will concede the point that we would be better off without it.
It’s the how we get there that disturbs me.

We all have a constitutional right of free association and the right to own lawful businesses. If I don't want to be around drinking, I won't go into a bar. If I don't want my hearing damaged, I won't go into a club or concert. Those places are for people who choose to participate in that activity. I have and would stand up and defend their right to exist and your right to be there. When I CHOOSE to go somewhere where I know these things are occurring, I have made a choice. I certainly am not going to bitch about it. If I do complain, shame on me. I do not smoke in the company of those who do not. If you choose not to do so, or have quit, hats off to you sir!

Yes, you're right, you should be able to frequent establishments that are smoke free. I should be able to frequent establishments that are smoking. If it's just me and a couple of other losers in there, what do you care? It's none of your business. Ask yourself this question: Can't non- smoking restaurants and bars exist on their own merit?

And, in my opinion, it IS all about politics and ideology. The left would just love to take your guns, ban hunting, close the shoreline to fishing, outlaw smoking. They can't win a popular referendum on these issues even in a state like the Peoples' Republic of Massachusetts. So they skulk and slither their way through cracks and loopholes of the government, using the courts, the bureaucracy, etc., to legislate without the majority of the voters' consent. We could make it easier for them by amending the Constitution of the United States to provide for a self-appointed committee that tells you and me how to lead our lives.

I’m not defending big tobacco. They’re pushers just like all the rest of them (A-B, Miller, distillers ). Their tactics and philosophy were, and probably still are, indefensible. But do you really think they are the only “Big” business that has traded lives for profit (remember the big car makers’ death trap years)? Again, not to wear it out, but a feel good “Let’s all drink responsibly” ad that occurs simultaneously with a price war amongst the major suppliers is just plain hypocrisy. Didn’t I just read about the carnage on RI roads being at an all time high, or rising quickly?

The tool that the left is using in this jihad is litigation. Litigation is driven by lawyers. The overwhelming majority of law school graduates are liberals . Fear of lawsuits is one reason otherwise reasonable public servants will go along with this. Did anyone else think that a 100, 200,500 million or more lawsuit for the umpteenth time year after year was a bit over litigious? Juries who continue toward these settlements after 30 years have put all of our civil rights in jeopardy. These type of punitive awards are about class not justice. Maybe tort reform is worthy of another look?

I know I’ve been long winded, but this strikes a chord (can’t you tell?). We should be very leery about limiting any of our rights. I hope I have made a honorable attempt at defending some of my opinions, and addressing your rebuttals. Although I stand by the essence of my earlier post, I may have offended someone with my colorful characterizations of the loyal opposition. Please forgive me. I know not all liberals wear panties.

Originally posted by bcaron

(I will concede the point that smoking is a bad health risk.
I will concede the point that we would be better off without it.
It’s the how we get there that disturbs me.")

Use this as an excuse/reason to quit, you'll live longer... :D

(Yes, you're right, you should be able to frequent establishments that are smoke free. I should be able to frequent establishments that are smoking. )

Yes, I think the way that laws are written smoking clubs, etc.. will still be allowed to exist....

(And, in my opinion, it IS all about politics and ideology. The left would just love to take your guns, ban hunting, close the shoreline to fishing, outlaw smoking. They can't win a popular referendum on these issues even in a state like the Peoples' Republic of Massachusetts.)

Politics and Ideology are seperate.. I havent voted republican, probably ever, however I dont want to ban hunting (the opposite, there are plenty of deer for everyone to shoot, even if I'm not a hunter), I'm fine with guns for that use... Automatic weapons I'm against, but thats another issue... Also, I am one of the staunchest advocates for shoreline access and public use... outlawwing smoking in public I'm for, (obviously, thats why we're having this debate) In fact shoreline access are seperate issues, poll Liberals and you'd probably find more are pro-public use of lands than the right.. there are extreme environmentalists who want to ban fishing, but I dont think they will ever get a strong enough foothold to do any serious damage...

(The tool that the left is using in this jihad is litigation. Litigation is driven by lawyers. The overwhelming majority of law school graduates are liberals . )

The right uses litigation too, don't kid yourself...

I know I’ve been long winded, but this strikes a chord (can’t you tell?). We should be very leery about limiting any of our rights. I hope I have made a honorable attempt at defending some of my opinions, and addressing your rebuttals. Although I stand by the essence of my earlier post, I may have offended someone with my colorful characterizations of the loyal opposition. Please forgive me. I know not all liberals wear panties.

Thanks, I wear boxers :D

Your missing the point. people who smoke in public force others to breathe their pollution. Its a violation of my rights if i have to breathe someone elses poison. The above qoute is comparing apples to oranges. if i didnt drink and went into a bar where people were drinking, it wouldn't effect me because the beer isnt in the air........ And besides this law is only for resteraunts.

Commando here:rolleyes: But that's neither here nor there...

RRH you're points have merit but parsing my argument only serves to obscure the larger issue. Far more clever people than me use that tactic to whittle away at and/or rationalize limits on our fundamental rights. It’s the basic struggle for individual liberty that people like you and I have been fighting 230 years for. Would I be healthier if the gov’t. outlawed smoking tomorrow? Yes, but how long before that path would lead to laws limiting my other rights?

BC.. Eben's right, it's NOT about YOUR right it's about his and mine and everyone elses that has to breathe it in, plain and simple, thats why it was a worker saftey act... if cigs had no smoke that caused cancer in OTHER people and mearly hurt the smoker this issue would be mute.. Thats the bottom line, it isnt about limiting rights of the individual,, its about keeping the masses who have made the decision not to smoke healthier and safer... especially those who had to bearound smokers because of their job... just so happens that where the work is where I eat/drink...

Please reexamine my reply. I'm not for smoking around you. I want the right to be with people who want to, you have the right to do the same (non-smoking). Why can't I open a restaurant in Cranston called "Smokey's" ? Would you go in there? Why would you want to?

As far as your "Apples and Oranges" allusion:

The argument against smoking in privately owned establishments is based on the equivocal data published in several studies. That data suggests a link between second hand smoke and increased rates of serious disease in non-smokers exposed over a long term. I merely sought to point out that tobacco smoke is not the only harmful chemical that is legally present at said establishments, and arguably not the most lethal.

As long as I can go to a resteraunt and not have to breathe someone else's exhaust, I will be happy, but your right, there should be exceptions.... I dont know exactly what the law is though, there might be exceptions writen in there..:huh:

"a bunch of BS???? why should I have to breath your cancer causing fumes while I'm trying to eat breakfast at a Breakfast Joint??? thats just rude and I'm all for it"


Um, you can go to another resturant right?

I have been smoke free for almost 2 weeks now, it isn't easy but I'm doing it. I can't wait till noone can smoke in public places, it'll make quitting that much easier.

Um, you can go outside and Smoke, right?

Thats what i'm saying.. take it outside.

You have to be 50 feet away from the doors