News-Record.com

as a smoker, i agree.
i think if the local, state and federal governments really wanted to save the non-smokers, they'd outlaw tobacco once and for all.
of course, there'd be a few "financial ramifications", but i'm sure the country would survive.
and why stop there? tens of thousands die at the hands of drunk drivers. quit selling booze at bars and restraunts.is not the highway a "public place"??
and finally, theres auto emissions. maybe one car per family? after all, is not the auto also responsible for killing the planet as well as fouling the lungs of every city dweller??
i mean, come on really. lets get serious here.

Lilbean, your parallel between smoking restrictions and drunk driving and carbon emissions is valid. As you have astutely pointed out, we do need laws to encourage people to act responsibly.

This smoking restriction would be one of those laws. I'm glad you're getting serious, here.

Any law, by its very nature, is another freedom taken away.

Is this ban necessary? When I think of public places, most of them already do not allow smoking. Do they? Court house, Post Office, the DMV, the malls, hospitals, grocery stores, the coliseum, government buildings, movie theaters, sports venues, doctor's offices, and the list goes on and on and on. I don't think any of these places allow smoking.

Not even the major fast-food restaurant chains allow smoking. A growing number of other chains and private owners are getting rid of smoking.

So what does that leave? Privately owned bars and restaurants, of which, I'd guess 98% have non-smoking sections.

There is a choice. Non-smokers do not have to take themselves or their astmatic children to these restaurants that do not have adequate non-smoking sections.

Let the market decide. It is unbelievable to me that a bar owner would not have the right to allow smoking in his pool hall if he wanted to and people actually support that.

Hey, if you "think" there's already a ban, obviously the mayor is daft in pursuing one.

Any restaurant or bar that wishes to hermetically encase their customers and employees in tobacco smoke should be entitled to do so. Any shooting range that wishes to permit people to fire at anything they like should be entitled to do so, as well, just as long as everybody who walks in is a willing participant.

And parents of asthmatic children should bear the entire responsibility of making sure their kids don't choke to death because Nitpicker chooses to enjoy a Marlboro at Po Folks.

nitpicker,
It is amazing how your views on Bush's war, stem cells, abortion, do not even come close to your view on smoking. Are you a tobacco addict?

Already answered that one in the past. I don't smoke. BTW, Po Folks is now called the Blue Ribbon Restaurant or something like that.

There are restaurants that I will not frequent due to the lingering smell of ashtray. These include J. Butlers, Applebees, and many other Bar and Grills. That still leaves PLENTY of options for me to eat in a healthy environment.

Speaking of health, a quick glance at most of the menus at area restaurants gives me the feeling that most of the folks who eat out a lot don't consider health very much when they decide to eat 'out'.

It's called personal choice and personal freedom. I don't like loud restaurants. They probably damage my hearing. But I don't support a ban on loudness.

As for the case of abortion and stem cells, if the child had a personal choice as to whether to live or die I'd probably support that as well.

Loud restaurants? Maybe the decor.
Loud smoking should be banned, of course.

Run a bit with your thought, NitP'er.

IF a child had a choice .. assume he did, and he's going to be a Crack baby .. looking from a very early perspective - that means absolute torture as an infant - apparently they scream in real pain at just being held .. how long is his perspective? Given a few weeks and he'd certainly take the "euthanasia" approach.

How about a serious case of Downs into a non-loving family? Given a decade of perspective and he might also take the "euthanasia" approach.

One other element: many that unsuccessfully try the "euthanasia" approach .. regret what they tried and by the Grace of God go on to live productive lives.

So I think you will rethink your statement.

James,
Great words of wisdom to nit. Hopefully, nit will consider your idea and grow intellectually, emotionally and spiritually. The problems are too complex to be emotionally charged by hellfire and brimstone.

James,

Change my perspective based on what? Can't see anything you wrote in that last post that would change my perspective. Crack babies and retarded children deserve to die? Is that it?

Sorry, Demon. Got no desire to grow into anything resembling you.

Nit,
If you are so hard and fast on this issue, how many crack babies or mentally retarded babies have you adopted? Do you still rail against the "gubbermint" for taking care of the poor and downtrodden? Which is it, Nit? Are you just pro birth?

I'm guessing the percentage of crack babies and babies with severe developmental problems aren't that big a percentage of the babies that are aborted each year.

I've never railed agaisnt the government taking care of the mentally retarded or physically disabled.

Here's something radical. Forced sterilization for people who abandon their children. Without anathesia for folks who give birth to crack babies.

nitpicker, let's be reasonable. You need to include the fathers of crack babies also, not just the mothers.

BB,

Definitely.