Smoking Ban/County Wide

[Sister Golden Hair]

I live in Akron Ohio, in the county of Summit, which covers multiple communities. A "smoking ban" has been put into effect for the entire county with exemptions to bowling alleys and bars that are considered private clubs. Under the terms of the ban, you may not smoke in any public establishment or 10 feet from its entrance. In a smaller clause attached, you may not smoke outside of your residence if you are 10 feet from another residence that may choose to object. If you are found in violation of the new ordinace, you will be fined $150.00, your first offense.

It is my opinion that the government, be it federal, state or local, has no place in making this mandatory. Businesses should have the right to make that choice and not be required to conform to a decision that they believe will effect their revenues. Many owners that are non-smokers were against this, and find it to be unconstitutional.

I also find it to be quite a political play on the part of Akron. Akron is the largest community in the county, and they are discussing making the downtown area exempt from the law. In that case, Akron has everything to gain. All surrounding communities will flock here on Friday and Saturday night for a funfilled weekend of eating, smoking, and drinking.

There are smoking bans in effect in certian cities nationwide. This will be the first county wide ban in the U.S.

Thoughts?

[Nurvingiel]

I fully support bans on smoking. I don't think people who work in restaurants (primarily the servers) should be exposed to second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke has been proven to be harmful. People shouldn't be forced to seek other employment just because they want to avoid the health costs of second-hand smoke.

Customers of restaurants and other establishments should also not be forced to take their business elsewhere to avoid second-hand smoke.

In BC, you aren't even allowed to smoke in bars. There is no smoking in any public places. Though there was some bumpiness in adjusting to the new bylaws (mainly, bar and pub owners worried they'd lose business), this bylaw works flawlessly now.
Plus, since the rule applies to all bars and pubs, they have not lost business AFAIK. I don't see that people would stop going out altogether just because they can't smoke. This may occur, but I doubt in significant numbers.

Great thread SGH.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

It is my opinion that the government, be it federal, state or local, has no place in making this mandatory. Thoughts?

I agree 100%. I've always supported the rights of smokers to smoke if they wish. It seems they are being discriminated against unfairly.
Workplace smoking and certain public locations, I can accept, but this harassment of every single place is just too much. NYC has really made it difficult for smokers too. Yet the governments want smokers to pay $34 for a carton of cigaretts and not let them be smoked.

[Nurvingiel]

I have no problem with people smoking in their own homes, or outside (unless it's in a confined place like the patio of a restaurant, but often you're still allowed to smoke there).

The issue for me is not smoking, which people have the right to do, but second-hand smoke. People do not have the right to get other people sick with their second-hand smoke.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I have no problem with people smoking in their own homes, .

Do you actually read and understand what you post? How arrogant to allow people to do what they wish in their own home.

[Nurvingiel]

Okay, that did come across a bit wrong.

But I assert people do not have the right to put second-hand smoke in a public space*. Logically that leaves their own personal space, and outside.

*where other people are quite likely to breathe it (since technically outside is private too).

[Sister Golden Hair]

Here's the issue with me: the government only benefits from smokers. The government has everything to gain by charging outragious taxes on smoking products, and at the same time making it hard to smoke it. So, I have to agree with Spock in that aspect. Privately owned businesses should have a choice on making their establishments smoke free or not. If you are a non smoker then go patronize a non smoking establishment. Not every establishment should have to become smoke free because non smokers want catered to. Bottom line, it should be a choice by the owner of the establishment, not government controlled.

[Nurvingiel]

Spock and SGH, you guys bring up a good point about government control.

However, is it still fair to the people that work in those environments? Do you think someone with asthma or another respitory problem, or someone who wants to avoid the effects of second-hand smoke, should have to find a different job?

The government does already regulate what ill effects employees can be exposed too.

[Finrod Felagund]

Canada is slowly but surely banning public smoking in many major cities. I like it that way.

[Jonathan]

I guess a lot depends on the pension and healthcare systems of the country you live in. I know for sure that in Sweden, pensions and health costs don't benefit from smoking at all. Maybe in a country with a healthcare sytem like the one in the US, smoking doesn't hit economy as hard. However, vasts sums of money are lost in every country due to people calling in sick (because of sicknesses related to smoking) and production losses. Vast sums of money. In Sweden, these costs are like ten times bigger than the costs of giving sick smokers the healthcare they need (which already is expensive).

[Jonathan]

(Post to update thread)

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

I live in Akron Ohio, in the county of Summit, which covers multiple communities. A "smoking ban" has been put into effect for the entire county with exemptions to bowling alleys and bars that are considered private clubs. Under the terms of the ban, you may not smoke in any public establishment or 10 feet from its entrance. In a smaller clause attached, you may not smoke outside of your residence if you are 10 feet from another residence that may choose to object. If you are found in violation of the new ordinace, you will be fined $150.00, your first offense.

It is my opinion that the government, be it federal, state or local, has no place in making this mandatory. Businesses should have the right to make that choice and not be required to conform to a decision that they believe will effect their revenues. Many owners that are non-smokers were against this, and find it to be unconstitutional.

I also find it to be quite a political play on the part of Akron. Akron is the largest community in the county, and they are discussing making the downtown area exempt from the law. In that case, Akron has everything to gain. All surrounding communities will flock here on Friday and Saturday night for a funfilled weekend of eating, smoking, and drinking.

There are smoking bans in effect in certian cities nationwide. This will be the first county wide ban in the U.S.

Thoughts?

I think everyone would be better if no one smoked tobacco products.

That being said, I think the gov't is being hypocritical. Gov't decries smoking as a health hazzard, yet gov't has no problem profiting from this health hazzard (primarily though taxes on tobacco products).

(On a cynical note: another side benefit to gov't-- in general many smokers die sooner from smoking related causes -- less burden on social security system -- smokers may cost less to gov't (not sure about complete health costs))

I think that private residences and private establishments should be exempt from this ban.
================================================== ==
I think that an individuals right to smoke in public ends at another person's nose. If they can find a way to smoke without infringing on anothers right to smoke free air then they can smoke in public, otherwise forget it.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by mithrand1r

Gov't decries smoking as a health hazzard, yet gov't has no problem profiting from this health hazzard (primarily though taxes on tobacco products).

Worldwide, high taxes on unhealthy products is a common way of keeping the number of buyers down. Profitting comes secondary (and the profit the government makes is quickly consumed anyway to pay for the costs that smoking brings to society).

[Spock]

Well the Indians smoked and look where it's gotten them.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

Well the Indians smoked and look where it's gotten them.

a multi-billion dollar casino empire... hmmm