[JJ]

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...itutional.html

[cross_block]

Whew....I feel better. Now if only these do-gooders would work on the pollution of Grand Lake St. Marys and Lake Erie......

[NewarkCatholicFan]

Love this

[libbey1963]

good

[lmavcch3]

I'm a non-smoker but not an anti-smoking person. When this ban was put in, I didn't agree with it. After getting used to smoke free restaurants, etc., I'm all for it.

My only complaint, as a non-smoker, is you can't eat outside on a patio without people smoking around you. Patios are the new "smoking areas".

[stoogefan73]

I know this would be difficult to regulate but what will annoys me are parents that smoke with children in the car, home, etc. Its one thing to have the freedom to jeopordize your own health but what are smokers thinking when their children are forced to breath second hand smoke?

[14Red]

There is not a group of people discriminated against more than smokers. I'm not a smoker, and this was one of those things that unfortunately most people just don't understand. Many of us want freedom from doing alot of things in this world, especially when we agree with them. This was one of those slippery slope things that started with non-smoking areas in restaurants, and now has encompassed about every public and private area in the state.
Let business owners, restaurants and bowling allys decide if they will allow smoking or not. We don't need another layer of government to watchdog these things.

[lmavcch3]

Agree completely 14Red.

[Lancer '65]

Does anyone who supports the right to smoke and opposes the costs of health care understand that these are diametrically opposing views? Smokers cause health care costs to spiral upward. Banning smoking has caused the following good results. Better health and longer life for many Americans. More pleasant restaurant experiences, concert environments, athletic experiences, less risk of heart attacks and strokes, less chance of cancer, particularly of the lungs, and all sorts of other benefits that we enjoy as a result of having our "right" to smoke limited.

I understand the feelings of those on the pro-smoking side. My Dad was probably one of those folks, but when he was chain smoking, no one worried about it. Lots of people smoked. In fact, I can't remember a time when I was growing up that I saw my Dad without a cigarette in his mouth. I also understand the political view that says the tobacco industry pours billions into our nation's economy yearly and it used to do just that. I'll bet I can name another industry that smoking helped boost before smoking was made much less available. The mortuary business definitely owes smoking a debt of gratitude.

My Dad has been gone for over 50 years now and I know there are those of you who would want me to present a link supporting the connection between smoking pack after pack a day for his entire adult life and his death from lung cancer, but you know what...if you don't think there is and I can't produce a link that you agree with, you'll simply deny the existence of such evidence and point to the much more compelling evidence that smoking actually prolongs life. George Burns lived to be a hundred and he smoked those big black smelly cigars all the time. For the record, one of the reasons I don't smoke is that I do believe that cigarettes killed my Dad and I don't really need a link. I had one.

[eaton7911]

This is truly a no win for either side. If non- smokers win they impose their rights on others and so to the other side. I am not a fan of smoking. I do however believe that a person has the right to do it if he wants. With smoking areas being designated that should be enough. This is really no different then the government telling us to wear seat belts. That is a choice, not a requirement. I don't know the answer and will not offer up one here but to say that each and every person has rights.

[sportster4321]

Damn knew it wouldn't go away. I love smoking

[14Red]

Originally Posted by Lancer '65

Does anyone who supports the right to smoke and opposes the costs of health care understand that these are diametrically opposing views? Smokers cause health care costs to spiral upward. Banning smoking has caused the following good results. Better health and longer life for many Americans. More pleasant restaurant experiences, concert environments, athletic experiences, less risk of heart attacks and strokes, less chance of cancer, particularly of the lungs, and all sorts of other benefits that we enjoy as a result of having our "right" to smoke limited.

I understand the feelings of those on the pro-smoking side. My Dad was probably one of those folks, but when he was chain smoking, no one worried about it. Lots of people smoked. In fact, I can't remember a time when I was growing up that I saw my Dad without a cigarette in his mouth. I also understand the political view that says the tobacco industry pours billions into our nation's economy yearly and it used to do just that. I'll bet I can name another industry that smoking helped boost before smoking was made much less available. The mortuary business definitely owes smoking a debt of gratitude.

My Dad has been gone for over 50 years now and I know there are those of you who would want me to present a link supporting the connection between smoking pack after pack a day for his entire adult life and his death from lung cancer, but you know what...if you don't think there is and I can't produce a link that you agree with, you'll simply deny the existence of such evidence and point to the much more compelling evidence that smoking actually prolongs life. George Burns lived to be a hundred and he smoked those big black smelly cigars all the time. For the record, one of the reasons I don't smoke is that I do believe that cigarettes killed my Dad and I don't really need a link. I had one.

Lancer, you have the majority opinion, and that's why this is one of those issues that is wrong, but for the overall good it will never change. Look, I don't smoke, and I understand the dangers of smoking. But I also understand that this slippery slope has gone from creating smoking "sections" to not smoking indoors, and now there are even outdoor public places where people can't smoke. Governments has taxed the heck out of cigarettes and people will still smoke. We have people now who have virtually lived in a smoke free environment their entire lives, and they really notice when there is a smoker even in the area.
My slippery slope argument is when does the next shoe drop, when does government start telling people what kinds of food, and how much they eat? The cost of fast food has actually dropped over the last 25 years due to competition, yet we are hammered with the obesity rates everyday in the news? Are our healthcare dollars more affected by the 10-15% that smoke, or the 50-70% that eat at fast food restaurants??? See where I'm going.

[hrspeedmerchant]

I'm a non-smoker, but I can certainly understand, and even sympathize, with those people who raise the issue of personal freedom and proprety owner's rights. We should resist governmental intrusion.

That stated, I'm troubled on where and how we draw the line. At what point does the right of a building owner trump all other rights? For example, few people would support a factory owner who disdained machinery guarding just because he felt OSHA was nothing short of government meddling.

I also doubt a banquet hall owner would have broad support if he or she decided fire occupancy codes should be a personal choice.

Can we really pick and choose which laws we follow and which ones we reject just because a structure is privately owned?

[Lancer '65]

It is a very difficult and complicated issue. Obviously I have a great vested interest in the smoking debate but there have been several excellent points made on this thread regarding when we allow government intrusion and when perhaps, we shouldn't.

[wisdome]

Originally Posted by Lancer '65

It is a very difficult and complicated issue. Obviously I have a great vested interest in the smoking debate but there have been several excellent points made on this thread regarding when we allow government intrusion and when perhaps, we shouldn't.

Not complicated at all. If somebody wants to smoke they should not impose the results of their vice (exhaling or the smoke off the cigarette or cigar) on others that don't smoke. So how is that fixed...having areas where they can do thier thing and not impact those that don't want the results of doing thier thing on or in them. That could be a special section just for them to sit, eat and smoke while those that don't smoke be in another location.

Now has anybody thought abouth this? Smoking is considered somewhat a vice and those that smoke can put the results of thier vice on others that don't want it. How would the smoker like the results of the beer drinkers (you know what I mean) being put on them???? Just saying....

[EastYoungstown]

It's totally absurd that you can go to a bar, get hammered, and kill a few folks on your way home but can't smoke there. So you can drink all you want there, far beyond having the capacity to drive, but can't smoke? DUMB. I'd much rather be on the road with someone who smoked a pack of Camel Lights at the local watering hole rather than someone who drank a case of PBR. I've never heard of anyone killed by someone drinking and smoking.

I'd rather be married to a smoker than a drinker if i had to choose.

I'd rather my kids smoke instead of drank if i had to choose.

Alcoholics get a free pass but smokers get the shaft? Bullsh*t I say. Alcohol is far worse.

[dorciepatrick]

An individual who drinks alcohol inconveniences no one by simply drinking. He has to engage in other acts in order to harm others.
An individual who eats fatty foods inconveniences no one by simply doing so. He only harms himself.

An individual who smokes, however, inconveniences everyone around him. His smoke makes the air smell bad. His smoke makes the clothes of those near him smell bad. His smoke does more than that, though. It makes others in his vicinity breathe in the smoke emitted from his exhalation of cigarette smoke -- including many harmful ingredients known to cause serious problems.

Any comparison of smoking with either drinking alcohol or eating fast food is just not valid.

[14Red]

Originally Posted by dorciepatrick

An individual who drinks alcohol inconveniences no one by simply drinking. He has to engage in other acts in order to harm others.
An individual who eats fatty foods inconveniences no one by simply doing so. He only harms himself.

An individual who smokes, however, inconveniences everyone around him. His smoke makes the air smell bad. His smoke makes the clothes of those near him smell bad. His smoke does more than that, though. It makes others in his vicinity breathe in the smoke emitted from his exhalation of cigarette smoke -- including many harmful ingredients known to cause serious problems.

Any comparison of smoking with either drinking alcohol or eating fast food is just not valid.

Good points dorcie, but remember in the slippery slope world, it only needs to get started. I've always contended that if you really want to stop drinking and driving, set cops out by bar parking lots. I would guess that easily 50% of those leaving bars are over the legal limit. I don't say drunk, but over the legal limit. How many people go into bars and just has one drink? And how many people drive themselves to the bar?

[hrspeedmerchant]

Originally Posted by 14Red

My slippery slope argument is when does the next shoe drop, when does government start telling people what kinds of food, and how much they eat? See where I'm going.

Good points, but in the case of the smoking ban, government didn't tell people anything....it was the residents of Ohio who decided to ban smoking in most public places. And they did it at the ballot box in a text book example of pure democracy.

[Kintolz]

An individual who eats fatty foods inconveniences no one by simply doing so. He only harms himself.

They also inconvenience the health care companies and there families with heart failure being the leading cause of death in the US. We need to become like new york and start banning everything unhealthy. I am tired of paying for Johny down the street to get medical care due to eating to many cheeseburgers and large drinks from mcdonalds. How can I start a petition on the ballot to raise taxes on fast food so we can cover some of the growing health care costs? Or to totally ban fast food and soda.