News-Record.com

I think it should be left to the business owners/property owners.

If the non smokers are so offended, why not go someplace else? Not ALL restaurants allow smoking; in fact, it seems in the 2 years I've lived here, more and more are switching to non smoking only.

I really don't think this is something the government should be involved in.

Vince, do you at least think the government has an interest in requiring a healthy working environment for employees of bars and restaurants?

Vince, do you at least think the government has an interest in requiring a healthy working environment for employees of bars and restaurants?* Doug

Sure why not! Suppose the Head Chef is cripple and has a tough time in chopping up the onions along with 5 Gay waiters who have AIDs and the Bartender is a crossdressing transgender person with a anger mangement issue against the owners.

How does the local county commissioner enforce this second hand food handling problem to the customers, besides calling the local vice squad and getting sue by the Federal department of civil rights.

Doug - I do, BUT - those people are free to work where they choose.

There are reams of occupational safety and health laws that operate on the notion that employers have an obligation to provide a safe and healthy work environment, not that employees should simply work somewhere else if their workplace is dangerous.

Let's pull in the QuickStop on the way home and have a beer with Joe, the owner.
Joe says there’s nothing wrong with it so let's indulge. That drankin’ and drivin’ thang is blown way outta proportion.
Let's have another, one of them big tall boys.
Did you notice Joe still has those broken ceiling tiles with the asbestos in them? He never believed those silly stories about asbestos causing cancer and he has the right to keep them as long as he wants. Mesothelioma probably ain’t even in the dikshonery.
Let's have another beer and smoke some tobacky. That pregnant woman coming in to pay for her gas won’t mind. It’ll probably be good for the little feller. Breathe deep m’am, you don’t want to miss any of them 43 toxins.
I hope I don’t forget the dog food before I leave. Never mind it's been recalled, Joe says he's selling it anyway, it can't be that bad. It's just dogs. So what if it’s killed a few? There’s plenty more dogs. Joe’s the owner, he should know.
Let's have a couple more beers and head home.
It’s just a little hard to focus on the road but it’s a good thing that Joe didn't have his rights trampled on by some nanny state.

Thanks, tony. Very effective way to make a point.

That comment was mine.

Well, I guess we're all just too stupid to know any better and we NEED our government to regulate as much of our lives as they possibly can - that way, all we have to worry about is making sure we get up in the morning, on time and get out the door - we'll let the government control the rest.

Lets say that lady DOES walk in to the "quick stop" and see's them tippin a few, and smells the "tobacky" - if she's smart, she won't go back, right? Will the one trip in hurt her, or her baby? Probably not.

Alcohol is bad for you, it's a drug - maybe it should be banned in bars and restaurants too. One of the byproducts of alcohol consumption is drunk driving - where innocent, NON drinkers sometimes get killed. Yep, alcohol should be banned from those places too.

Even as I support stricter smoking regulations, I do agree that we can't solve every problem with more government regulation and enforcement.

It does seem like that's the kneejerk answer to everything: more regulation of what we eat and drink, what our pets eat, where we send our kids to camp ... These remedies address real concerns, but can we afford a nanny state, and how much freedom do we want to give up for safety?

It's funny how conservatives tend to view government regulation in the name of consumer safety as infringing on personal freedom, while liberals say the same about security measures in the name of protecting us against terrorists.

Doug says, "It's funny how conservatives tend to view government regulation in the name of consumer safety as infringing on personal freedom, while liberals say the same about security measures in the name of protecting us against terrorists."

Both are true. Laws themselves don't prevent people from doing things they shouldn't do. You have to show someone real consequence. Even then laws won't prevent crazy criminals from killing. What these laws do is take choice and privacy away from the citizens who obey the law.

Take the law about drunk driving. Setting the drunk driving limit does not prevent a drunk driver from getting on the road. They don't stop to think, have I reached .08? Of course not. Judges routinely give them a dismissal. Repeat offenders get back on the road. But other drivers are just as dangerous when talking on a cell, eating, putting on lipstick, or not getting enough sleep. Perhaps if we focus on the harm actually done to others and make them pay we can get somewhere.

The government has a conflict of interest in protecting consumers because they are so entrenched with corporate lobbyists. When we think the gov is going to protect us, we let our guard down. We are not safer from terrorists either. The government can't even keep its own killers in jail.