Pa None Smoking!

[LisaG21]

PA just passed that it will be a none smoking state and resturants and bars have to comply within 2 years!! :balloons: WOOOHOOOO:balloons:

[Balder_LPN, LPN]

smokers have no constitutional freedom to expose others to this danger.

and non-smokers have no constitutional obligation to frequent an establishment that allows smoking.

Let the market dictate smoking policy, if the people dont want to go where there is smoke, then go where there is none. if enough non smokers choose non smoking establishments then that is what the owners will do, they have to make money.

Too bad the general population is such a herd of cattle and feels that is is the job of the government to be the drover and tell them what do to and be in control to "protect" them all the time.

STAND UP AND MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS AND VOTE WITH YOUR $$$. If more people would do that then we wouldnt need to be wasting so much of our $$$ on enforcing all these rules so many feel they "need" to protect them.

TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY

moooooooo

[Agnus]

To the poster who described smoking as one of her/his "need"(s).

I understand additcion. There is a difference between addiction and need. You do not your body does not need tobacco. There is only one creature on earth that benifits from tobacco it is the tobacco horn worm.

Addiction to tobacco is a terrible and cruel addiction. Smokers suffer terribly. However, with the right help and persistance you can overcome this. There is not only nicotine products and wellbutrin that help you overcome the addiction to nicotine there is help available to help over come the habit of smoking. And to over come the social, emoational and other obsticles to quiting and staying a non somoker.

It is not easy. It is not impossible. It does take persistance.

[LydiaNN]

and non-smokers have no constitutional obligation to frequent an establishment that allows smoking.

Let the market dictate smoking policy, if the people dont want to go where there is smoke, then go where there is none. if enough non smokers choose non smoking establishments then that is what the owners will do, they have to make money.

Too bad the general population is such a herd of cattle and feels that is is the job of the government to be the drover and tell them what do to and be in control to "protect" them all the time.

STAND UP AND MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS AND VOTE WITH YOUR $$$. If more people would do that then we wouldnt need to be wasting so much of our $$$ on enforcing all these rules so many feel they "need" to protect them.

TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY

moooooooo

You don't think the "market" drives legislative decisions? I would certainly disagree with that assessment of what drives the political machines in this country, but to each their own. I do indeed expect the government to protect me and my family from known carcinogens, as second hand smoke has been proven to be. I also support the laws mandating controls on lead, asbestos, and various other toxins.

[rn in 3 years]

To the poster who described smoking as one of her/his "need"(s).

I understand additcion. There is a difference between addiction and need. You do not your body does not need tobacco. There is only one creature on earth that benifits from tobacco it is the tobacco horn worm.

Addiction to tobacco is a terrible and cruel addiction. Smokers suffer terribly. However, with the right help and persistance you can overcome this. There is not only nicotine products and wellbutrin that help you overcome the addiction to nicotine there is help available to help over come the habit of smoking. And to over come the social, emoational and other obsticles to quiting and staying a non somoker.

It is not easy. It is not impossible. It does take persistance.

My husband is a smoker and has been for 25 years. Everytime he fails at quitting he just says "Smoking is as addictive as herion (sp?)". IMO he uses that as an excuse. Sure, it is addictive but if someone is addicted to drugs then that is a bad thing and not tolerated by society. Why is it OK to be addicted to tobacco and why is that an excuse to stay smoking? If I was addicted to alcohol and used the addiction to not get help then I would be a bad wife and mother. I think smokers need to stop using the fact that smoking is addictive as a reason to give up quitting so quickly.

I know I will get flames for what I posted but that's OK. For what its worth, my husband can smoke until the day he dies for all I care. He is a big boy and I am not his mother. BUT.....he CAN NOT smoke in the house or the car if I or my children are in there. If he wants to kill himself thats his choice but he will not pollute the air we breathe.

[Nicky032605]

You don't think the "market" drives legislative decisions? I would certainly disagree with that assessment of what drives the political machines in this country, but to each their own. I do indeed expect the government to protect me and my family from known carcinogens, as second hand smoke has been proven to be. I also support the laws mandating controls on lead, asbestos, and various other toxins.

:yeahthat:

[rach_nc_03]

and (outside of the research about a glass of wine per day being beneficial because of the antioxidants) who benefits from alcohol consumption? fast food? driving big SUVs? gambling? nobody (except the government via taxes, and corporations selling harmful products to the public).

I don't mind when a friend asks if i've considered quitting smoking. I'm supportive of my smoking friends when they try to quit, and don't smoke around them if that's what they prefer. (Some would rather that i smoke as i usually would, so they can practice abstaining in the face of temptation.) I smoke in my home (no kids), and in restaurants/bars that allow smoking. granted, i live in the tobacco state, so we probably have more smoker-friendly establishments than most. but i don't smoke at work- i know my patients aren't choosing to be exposed to the smell of smoke on my clothes (like someone who sits at a smoking-allowed bar *is* doing), so i'm not going to subject them to that.

i see it as a personal responsibility issue. if i choose to smoke in my own home, it harms no person but me. If i go to a restaurant or bar and smoke, i don't go traipsing through the nonsmoking area with a lit cigarette. Along the same lines, if you drink a six-pack in your living room and stay there, i could care less. If you go to a bar and drink a beer, then get in your car and drive home, i don't really care either, as long as you're not legally intoxicated. When you drink enough to be legally intoxicated and get behind the wheel, it becomes my problem. I personally see no difference at all between smoking and drinking, in terms of potential damage to others- secondhand smoke vs. drunk drivers on the roads. the difference is that i can smoke in my own home, then get in the car and go somewhere without risking your life because my smoking made me impaired.

[LydiaNN]

I personally see no difference at all between smoking and drinking, in terms of potential damage to others- secondhand smoke vs. drunk drivers on the roads. the difference is that i can smoke in my own home, then get in the car and go somewhere without risking your life because my smoking made me impaired.

The difference would be one you alluded to in your message. There are laws that will punish the drinker who chooses to endanger other people's lives by drinking and driving. Once it became known that second hand smoke is a carcinogen, it was a no-brainer to start passing laws protecting the public from being unwillingly exposed.

[Balder_LPN, LPN]

You don't think the "market" drives legislative decisions? I would certainly disagree with that assessment of what drives the political machines in this country, but to each their own. I do indeed expect the government to protect me and my family from known carcinogens, as second hand smoke has been proven to be. I also support the laws mandating controls on lead, asbestos, and various other toxins.

I think the key difference is that asbestos and lead are things that are completly hidden and you would be exposed to without your consent. If you want to have a beer and or dinner and dont want to be exposed to smoke then you can easily choose an establishment that does not allow smoking. of course there are fewer of them than places that allow smoking. If all these people who vote against smoking would vote with their dollars by choosing non smoking establishments then they would have far more choices of places that where smoke free, and thier individual choices would not be forced on others.

By "Market" I guess I mean "free market" ie how people spend their money, and that does not really drive legislative decisions (ie if everone buys fords, or everyone chooses McD's for fast food, does that drive legislative decisions) i really feel the reason people want these laws is just because they are to lazy/unmotivated to spend there dollars in ways that make the vendors change the way they do biz, and instead want the govt to do it for them, saving the individual the effort.

Example: Farmed salmon are very unhealthy to eat, full of chemicals, hormones and known carcinogens, but if you want to eat them, thats your choice, as long as people buy them then someone will grow and sell them, however, we are more likely to see a law against farmed fish before people would quit buying them and put the growers and sellers out of buisness. in our area there is a big political movement to outlaw fish farming, I wouldnt touch a farmed fish with a 10 foot pole, but I dont think it should be against the law.

[LydiaNN]

I think the key difference is that asbestos and lead are things that are completly hidden and you would be exposed to without your consent. If you want to have a beer and or dinner and dont want to be exposed to smoke then you can easily choose an establishment that does not allow smoking. of course there are fewer of them than places that allow smoking. If all these people who vote against smoking would vote with their dollars by choosing non smoking establishments then they would have far more choices of places that where smoke free, and thier individual choices would not be forced on others.

By "Market" I guess I mean "free market" ie how people spend their money, and that does not really drive legislative decisions (ie if everone buys fords, or everyone chooses McD's for fast food, does that drive legislative decisions) i really feel the reason people want these laws is just because they are to lazy/unmotivated to spend there dollars in ways that make the vendors change the way they do biz, and instead want the govt to do it for them, saving the individual the effort.

Example: Farmed salmon are very unhealthy to eat, full of chemicals, hormones and known carcinogens, but if you want to eat them, thats your choice, as long as people buy them then someone will grow and sell them, however, we are more likely to see a law against farmed fish before people would quit buying them and put the growers and sellers out of buisness. in our area there is a big political movement to outlaw fish farming, I wouldnt touch a farmed fish with a 10 foot pole, but I dont think it should be against the law.

All I know is that I live in the land of no smoking, California. It is swell. I don't have to puzzle over which restaurant to go to. I don't have to vote with my dollars. I voted with my ballot.

[Corvette Guy]

and (outside of the research about a glass of wine per day being beneficial because of the antioxidants) who benefits from alcohol consumption? fast food? driving big SUVs? gambling? nobody (except the government via taxes, and corporations selling harmful products to the public).

I don't mind when a friend asks if i've considered quitting smoking. I'm supportive of my smoking friends when they try to quit, and don't smoke around them if that's what they prefer. (Some would rather that i smoke as i usually would, so they can practice abstaining in the face of temptation.) I smoke in my home (no kids), and in restaurants/bars that allow smoking. granted, i live in the tobacco state, so we probably have more smoker-friendly establishments than most. but i don't smoke at work- i know my patients aren't choosing to be exposed to the smell of smoke on my clothes (like someone who sits at a smoking-allowed bar *is* doing), so i'm not going to subject them to that.

i see it as a personal responsibility issue. if i choose to smoke in my own home, it harms no person but me. If i go to a restaurant or bar and smoke, i don't go traipsing through the nonsmoking area with a lit cigarette. Along the same lines, if you drink a six-pack in your living room and stay there, i could care less. If you go to a bar and drink a beer, then get in your car and drive home, i don't really care either, as long as you're not legally intoxicated. When you drink enough to be legally intoxicated and get behind the wheel, it becomes my problem. I personally see no difference at all between smoking and drinking, in terms of potential damage to others- secondhand smoke vs. drunk drivers on the roads. the difference is that i can smoke in my own home, then get in the car and go somewhere without risking your life because my smoking made me impaired.

IMHO...

1. Second Hand Smoke justifies Public Smoking Bans.
   
2. Health Care Professionals should practice Wellness.
   
3. Cigarette smoking is not practicing Wellness.
   
4. Drinking alcohol is a poor comparison to Second Hand Smoke.
   
5. Second hand smoke kills, whereas drinking responsibly does not.
   
6. Driving intoxicated is illegal, whereas drinking responsibly is not.

[dreatx]

It's nice to see that people can save money and apply for loans to open a business, then pay taxes on said business only to have people that will likely never use their business push for legislation that tells them how they can run their business. High comedy.

One day we are going to start having problems if we try to have legislation that applies to every single possible human behavior or action.

Like many people, I tend to avoid places where I am uncomfortable and most places that allow smoking are places that no one is forced to go.

[grentea]

Given the fact that Congress just passed Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, I'm kind of surprised that states are going in a seemingly opposite direction when it comes to smoking. The Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act seems to imply that the government will have nothing to do with the poor choices in food we make (especially once we realize how much damage we did to our bodies and feel like someone should pay). I'm all about the way we vote with our pocketbooks. If I don't like the fact that a bar is filled with smoke, I won't go there. There are plenty of bars that aren't. And if someone is blowing smoke in my face at a bar, I'll ask them to stop blowing smoke in my face. We have choices, and by throwing the ball in the court of our state governments, we're giving them the power to make our choices for us. The way people complain about smokey bars and restaurants leads me to believe that if a bar/restaurant owner wanted to make his own bar non-smoking, he or she would still have plenty of patrons, and the government wouldn't have to get involved. I strongly believe that we do have choices. A person chooses to light up, and in the same way, we CHOOSE to expose ourselves to their second-hand smoke and continue to patronize bars and restaurants that promote a smoke-filled environment. I'm sure that there are non-smoker consumer advocacy groups out there, and I think organizing some sort of boycott of smoke-filled bars and restaurants, even if it was in one city, would be really effective. The government getting heavily involved in business is never really a good idea, and I strongly detest the idea of the government getting involved in the personal choices we make about our health, even if it's a choice that I wouldn't make for myself.