[More Cowbell]

There have been several laws that have recently been passed in cities like Lexington, which ban smoking in public places such as restaurants. Also, more and more you see smoking banned in buildings such as courthouses, schools, and hospitals.

What do you think? Is this government infringement on people's right to smoke if they want to, or is it the government protecting the health of those who would be adversely affected by secondhand smoke?

[Midee1]

One point to ponder.

Smoking in bars. How healthy is hanging out in bars anyway. I think alcohol is far more dangerous in the present moment than second hand smoke. The effects of drinking can have an immediate impact on human life where second hand smoke could take years to manifest it's impact.

[ronald_reagan]

One point to ponder.

Smoking in bars. How healthy is hanging out in bars anyway. I think alcohol is far more dangerous in the present moment than second hand smoke. The effects of drinking can have an immediate impact on human life where second hand smoke could take years to manifest it's impact.

The libertarian in me says no to all government control... but my heart tells me otherwise.

One of the few issues that I'm genuinely conflicted on, and have been for sometime.... is the above.

[Midee1]

I agree with Hospitals. Way to many sick people there to have to deal with second hand smoke.

Schools as well. You are supposed to be 18 to buy tobacco products and the majority of people in schools are under the legal age. The ones that are of legal age such as teachers need to be role models for our youth so they should not be allowed to either.

[Tomcat68]

It's protecting the health and right of those who don't want to smoke from inhaling deadly fumes.

[ronald_reagan]

I don't have a problem with government buildings being smoke free, but its a bit of a stretch to go from there... to imposing mandates on private businesses dealing with legal products, methods, and users.

The less government intrudes on the personal and private matters... the better off we all are. And thats a fact.

Now, should government refuse to pay for smoking related illnesses by way of Medicaid/Care? Absolutely. And its a 'legal product, a legal user, and legal usage/method of use, of the product." But yet its not a double standard by anymeans.

[More Cowbell]

I am in favor of these laws. I usually oppose any additional forms of government control as well, and if one thinks of the law as the government trying to protect the health of an individual who chooses to smoke, it sounds like too much government yet again.

But when you consider that it has been proven that secondhand smoke negatively affects the health of those exposed to it, it changes things. Now the act of smoking is causing harm to someone else, which has now become more than just an issue of personal freedom.

So, I agree with these laws on the premise of protecting my rights as a nonsmoker to not have my health negatively affected. Smokers can still light up all they want in their private homes.

[ronald_reagan]

I am in favor of these laws. I usually oppose any additional forms of government control as well, and if one thinks of the law as the government trying to protect the health of an individual who chooses to smoke, it sounds like too much government yet again.

But when you consider that it has been proven that secondhand smoke negatively affects the health of those exposed to it, it changes things. Now the act of smoking is causing harm to someone else, which has now become more than just an issue of personal freedom.

So, I agree with these laws on the premise of protecting my rights as a nonsmoker to not have my health negatively affected. Smokers can still light up all they want in their private homes.

Thats just illogical. We allow them to smoke in a small house with children, while their pregnant, in the car with kids and others, etc...... but not a bar? or a ventilated section of a resturaunt? and we should do this under the guise of 'protecting others'. ?? Thats like saying that a passenger on a motorcycle has to wear a helmet, but the driver doesn't? Or that the left side of the plane must buckle up, but not the right.

The free market will sort itself out. If you don't like smoke, then you won't go to such and such resturaant.. and when their business drops, they'll ban it themselves. Look at applebees... they didn't need an ordinance (for the most part) to get them to quit allowing it. They did it on their own.
This is a political issue, that gets votes... I'm sure that this save all of about... ZERO lives...

[Midee1]

Thats just illogical. We allow them to smoke in a small house with children, while their pregnant, in the car with kids and others, etc...... but we should do this under the guise of 'protecting others'. ?? Thats like saying that a passenger on a motorcycle has to wear a helmet, but the driver doesn't? Or that the left side of the plane must buckle up, but not the right.

This is a political issue, that gets votes... I'm sure that this save all of about... ZERO lives...

Not to change the subject but if I am not mistaken passengers under the age of 16 must wear a helmet but those over do not have to. It may be 18 but I am to lazy to go look.

[ronald_reagan]

Not to change the subject but if I am not mistaken passengers under the age of 16 must wear a helmet but those over do not have to. It may be 18 but I am to lazy to go look.

Which is insanity. lol

if the government cared about the safety of you and I, we'd have 5 point harnesses in every car, along with reinforced doors and an a 12 point roll cage.

The only thing that anyone in government cares about, is the next election. Not you or I.

Now, i'll get back on track... (although its actually on track lol)

[More Cowbell]

Thats just illogical. We allow them to smoke in a small house with children, while their pregnant, in the car with kids and others, etc...... but not a bar? or a ventilated section of a resturaunt? and we should do this under the guise of 'protecting others'. ?? Thats like saying that a passenger on a motorcycle has to wear a helmet, but the driver doesn't? Or that the left side of the plane must buckle up, but not the right.

This statement makes no sense whatsoever. What point, if there is one, are you even trying to get across?

It's a perfectly logical position. I believe government exists to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens, which includes my right to not have my health negatively affected by secondhand smoke.

You said above that you were conflicted on this issue, but it seems you already have your mind pretty well made up.

[ronald_reagan]

This statement makes no sense whatsoever. What point, if there is one, are you even trying to get across?

It's a perfectly logical position. I believe government exists to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens, which includes my right to not have my health negatively affected by secondhand smoke.

You said above that you were conflicted on this issue, but it seems you already have your mind pretty well made up.

It makes perfect sense. you only want to protect one group of people. just as the examples above show.

Why would you care about smoke in public, if the 3 y/o kid in the house next door gets smoke blown into his face 24 hours a day?

And yes, i have my mind made up on this issue. But I'm conflicted and being tugged in another direction from time to time.

So its either, all or nothing for me. Either take away the cancer sticks, or allow them to be smoked in PRIVATE establishments.

You do NOT have to visit one of these places. There's no law making you go, but by golly if you do go... the government will tell you how to live your life once there.

[More Cowbell]

It makes perfect sense. you only want to protect one group of people. just as the examples above show.

Why would you care about smoke in public, if the 3 y/o kid in the house next door gets smoke blown into his face 24 hours a day?

And yes, i have my mind made up on this issue. But I'm conflicted and being tugged in another direction from time to time.

So its either, all or nothing for me. Either take away the cancer sticks, or allow them to be smoked in PRIVATE establishments.

You do NOT have to visit one of these places. There's no law making you go, but by golly if you do go... the government will tell you how to live your life once there.

Smoking around kids or while pregnant is another issue entirely, this thread is about public smoking bans. If you want to discuss those topics, make another thread.

And no, no one is forced to go, but restaurants aren't the same as a private home. By leaving your house and going to a restaurant, you agree to suspend some of the freedoms you enjoy at home.

So no matter what, one group will have their rights impinged on. Whose freedoms are more important, those of the smoker or those of the non-smoker? I believe the right to breathe smoke-free air supercedes the right to light up.

[Panther Thunder]

I think all the restaurants in Pikeville are non-smoking now, and personally I LOVE IT!!!

[ronald_reagan]

I think all the restaurants in Pikeville are non-smoking now, and personally I LOVE IT!!!

I love it as well. I wish every home, building, office, store, etc was banned. I just to see government intrude on the rights of a private establishment that is a non-essential service provider. It makes no sense.

[ronald_reagan]

Smoking around kids or while pregnant is another issue entirely, this thread is about public smoking bans. If you want to discuss those topics, make another thread.

And no, no one is forced to go, but restaurants aren't the same as a private home. By leaving your house and going to a restaurant, you agree to suspend some of the freedoms you enjoy at home.

So no matter what, one group will have their rights impinged on. Whose freedoms are more important, those of the smoker or those of the non-smoker? I believe the right to breathe smoke-free air supercedes the right to light up.

And further, its NOT on topic to talk about bars and such, when the topic is about PUBLIC smoking.

These are PRIVATE establishments. PUBLIC buildings are state ran.

[Beef]

And further, its NOT on topic to talk about bars and such, when the topic is about PUBLIC smoking.

These are PRIVATE establishments. PUBLIC buildings are state ran.

I would think that by saying public, he meant outside of your home. So bars would be on this list as well as public buildings. I agree with not being able to smoke in Government buildings and RR makes a good point that the owners of restaurants should be able to set the smoking rules based on what they want to do and what is best for their business.

[ronald_reagan]

I agree with not being able to smoke in Government buildings and RR makes a good point that the owners of restaurants should be able to set the smoking rules based on what they want to do and what is best for their business.

Ya know, we had a bar here in lexington that was a CIGAR bar. A CIGAR BAR. Had to shut down because of the ban. Is that not just incredible?

There's an exemption process, where you can apply for a smoking permit. They turned their's down. Guess what building is the only one to be approved? Yep... City Hall.

[Crossbones]

Smoking around kids or while pregnant is another issue entirely, this thread is about public smoking bans. If you want to discuss those topics, make another thread.

And no, no one is forced to go, but restaurants aren't the same as a private home. By leaving your house and going to a restaurant, you agree to suspend some of the freedoms you enjoy at home.

So no matter what, one group will have their rights impinged on. Whose freedoms are more important, those of the smoker or those of the non-smoker? I believe the right to breathe smoke-free air supercedes the right to light up.

That statement goes for all people IMO. If you leave your house, then you inturn have given up some of your rights. As for the last paragraph, you are basically saying non smokers are better than smokers and are less than you right? Hypocrites!!!! Do you drink alcohol? And please don't say it's apple and oranges. Do you break the speed limit? They both infringe on my freedoms and you are indangering my life.

[ronald_reagan]

That statement goes for all people IMO. If you leave your house, then you inturn have given up some of your rights. As for the last paragraph, you are basically saying non smokers are better than smokers and are less than you right? Hypocrites!!!! Do you drink alcohol? And please don't say it's apple and oranges. Do you break the speed limit? They both infringe on my freedoms and you are indangering my life.

:Thumbs:

[Crossbones]

I am a smoker. Have been since I was 12 years old. I am not ashamed of it. I do however do not smoke around other people no matter the law or not. I never have. but for some of you people and the Gov. to sit back and say you are better than me and have more rights than me makes me sick. I do not tell people not to drink or drive fast or numerous other things that I fill is endangering my life or bad for my health. People just pick and choose whats good for them and over look the bad stuff they do.

[vundy33]

I think the owner or the person in charge of the place should be the one making the rule, not the government. But I can see it both ways, I can understand some people not wanting to be in a smokey enviroment in a resturant but I used to smoke and I loved to set down and have a drink in a bar and have a cig...I'm not sure on this one..lol

[Playboy5]

I am glad also that every county is trying to ban smoking in public places.

[Panther Thunder]

I love it as well. I wish every home, building, office, store, etc was banned. I just to see government intrude on the rights of a private establishment that is a non-essential service provider. It makes no sense.

I could see it goiing both ways: if you want to smoke stay at home or if you want to eat smoke-free stay at home. But the only thing is smoking isn't exactly healthy so I think if you are going to smoke do it at your place anytime you want, but let people enjoy their meal smoke-free. Non-smokers are doing nothing by going to the restaurant and eating their meal smoke free, that is not damaging the health of anyone.

[phs1986]

There were "non-smoking" establishments before the BAN went into affect. Smokers had the choice to visit there and not be allowed to smoke..... WHY couldn't it have been left alone and let the "non-smokers" choose to visit an establishment that allowed smoking and have to deal with it because they CHOSE to. If they went ..... there would be no need in ******** about it and then heading out the door (and losing some freedoms as soon as it shuts) to a business or whatever that permits smoking!! Kinda a double standard...????
I personally think every person is held accountable for their actions. People who smoke CHOSE to do so. Visit the establishments/businesses who permit smoking. Those who don't smoke, CHOSE to do so. Visit the MANY, MANY establishments/businesses that do NOT permit it........ Do we live in America?? Boy oh Boy.... I could get DEEP into this one!! LOLOL.....

[Panther Thunder]

There were "non-smoking" establishments before the BAN went into affect. Smokers had the choice to visit there and not be allowed to smoke..... WHY couldn't it have been left alone and let the "non-smokers" choose to visit an establishment that allowed smoking and have to deal with it because they CHOSE to. If they went ..... there would be no need in ******** about it and then heading out the door (and losing some freedoms as soon as it shuts) to a business or whatever that permits smoking!! Kinda a double standard...????
I personally think every person is held accountable for their actions. People who smoke CHOSE to do so. Visit the establishments/businesses who permit smoking. Those who don't smoke, CHOSE to do so. Visit the MANY, MANY establishments/businesses that do NOT permit it........ Do we live in America?? Boy oh Boy.... I could get DEEP into this one!! LOLOL.....

I see what you are saying, but are the non-smokers endangering anyone's health by not smoking?

[phs1986]

I see what you are saying, but are the non-smokers endangering anyone's health by not smoking?

Nope... they sure aren't.... BUT would they "endanger" their health if they chose to go to a "smoking" establishment? I feel that is a choice that people should make for themselves. They should have the FREEDOM to do that... The government shouldn't have the right to take away a freedom!!

[Crossbones]

Well, here's a few ?. Do any of you that don't smoke talk on a cell phone while driving?(Your endangering my life when you do that) Do you drink alcohol? (You could possible get out and drive and endanger my life) Do you yell loud at a ball game? (I could lose my hearing) Do you eat peanuts at Reno's?( I'm allergic to them, so they need to ban them) Do you all own a car?( it puts off carbon monoxide, that's bad for my health). I could go on and on with things that each and every one of you do that is bad for me.
I have no problem with not smoking in a restaurant, but who are you to tell me not to do it? I'll say it again....HYPOCRITES.........People just pick and choose what they fill is good for their lifestyle, but when someone infringes on their's, they cry and moane and say it"s not fair. I could cry about cell phones causing brain cancer and have them banned from public places. Only use them in your home. I could go on and on.

[sherman14]

I do not agree with public smoking because your effecting the health of evevryone around you and it's not fair to them.

[Crossbones]

Good point.