The era of unregulated cigars may be going up in smoke

[scar]

No sweat. I often type things that don't get my thoughts across clearly. LOL

[suggs]

Such is life! Welcome to FoH!

[anacostiakat]

It should be the establishment's decision IMHO.

Right now we smoke at home but they are coming for your homes (autos,etc.) as well. In some parts of the country this has already happened. Luckily there is zero chance of enforcement for homes where I live.

[mcease022]

This has nothing to do with anyone's health, but has to do with the potential end of the embargo and the increase in cigar sales due to Cuban cigars entering the US. If Cigars are plastered with anti-smoking messages and they are handled the same way as cigarettes then they can be taxed at an insane rate. The government can then justify the insane tax rate by saying that they are doing it for health reasons. More money for the government.

[scar]

This has nothing to do with anyone's health, but has to do with the potential end of the embargo and the increase in cigar sales due to Cuban cigars entering the US. If Cigars are plastered with anti-smoking messages and they are handled the same way as cigarettes then they can be taxed at an insane rate. The government can then justify the insane tax rate by saying that they are doing it for health reasons. More money for the government.

Exactly. My city, that just passed this this law, exempted one place. Is this place immune to the health risks of smoke that the rest of the city is not? No. What they are is a money funnel to the city. Yes it's a casino. Imagine that.

[wabashcr]

Agreed!

And the concept of choice is not real when it comes to choosing to work at a smoking establishment. Work is work, and many ppl, myself included, are thankful for the employment they have. If they would allow smoking at my job, sure I would look elsewhere, but I certainly cant just quit on the spot and expect to find another job the next day....how many bars n restos would revert back to smoking and drinking? In a heartbeat! The 2 go hand in hand, especially in colder climates, money talks, and cigarette smokers and sales add revenue to any business where social interaction is the purpose.

This is my feeling as well. Second hand smoke is a workplace hazard. Government regulates workplace practices in every industry that are detrimental to employee health. These regulations may be bad for the bottom line of the affected businesses, but we accept them, because we value workplace safety. If bars and restaurants allow smoking, you can't just tell a bartender or server to find a non-smoking bar or restaurant if they don't like smoke. The overwhelming majority wouldn't have that option. The principle of choice is great, but it's completely unrealistic. If you only allow it in cigar lounges, cigar lounge employees then have many other options available, and it becomes a legitimate choice.

[scar]

"you can't just tell a bartender or server to find a non-smoking bar or restaurant if they don't like smoke"

Why cant I? I paid for my bar, I pay the costs to run it, and i pay my employees wages. I owe no one a job. I offered you employment and you accepted the job knowing what you were in for. You can chose to work anywhere, and i will support you 100%. But don't come in to my place and try to force your views on me.

[CaptainQuintero]

It should be the establishment's decision IMHO.

Right now we smoke at home but they are coming for your homes (autos,etc.) as well. In some parts of the country this has already happened. Luckily there is zero chance of enforcement for homes where I live.

I think that is how Spain handles it; a venue has the choice of being either smoking or smoke free and the market decides if they succeed or fail because of that choice

[wabashcr]

"you can't just tell a bartender or server to find a non-smoking bar or restaurant if they don't like smoke"

Why cant I? I paid for my bar, I pay the costs to run it, and i pay my employees wages. I owe no one a job. I offered you employment and you accepted the job knowing what you were in for. You can chose to work anywhere, and i will support you 100%. But don't come in to my place and try to force your views on me.

You don't owe anyone a job, but you do owe your employees a safe and healthy workplace.

[Phatskipper]

I always found it odd that as a (hypothetical) bar owner I can refuse service to anyone for any reason (outside protected statuses).

Yet if I were to start a bar called "Smokey Joe's" with a posted sign that says "If you ain't smokin' I ain't hirin' or servin'"... I still couldn't allow smoking in my establishment.

Just seems odd to me that I cannot create a business with the sole intent of being a smoking establishment because some unidentified person "might" want to come in even though I can choose to throw them out without service at any point.

I just want to be left alone.

[PigFish]

... the safety of someone or something is always used to buttress these issues. Is life not a risk?

A litmus test of what other things are illegal is the prevailing mindset. With that in your mind, as you extend this mindset beyond 10 to 20 people, most of which have not had a viable lesson in history, nor had an original thought and you have just made everyone of man's endeavors illegal. It is extremely easy to be intolerant of your neighbor, especially when it comes to limiting his freedom on the presumed enhancement of your safety!

Freedom comes with a price and some of that price is tolerance for your fellow man.

Personally I am put-off by overpowering perfume and those who appear to have not bathed in a week. I don't really want to smell others' body odors... Should we be examining the make-up of perfume for toxic substances? No, of course not...

Governments role to protect personal liberty has been lost... Not misplaced, it is gone. Governments new role is to shape society to grow government. It really is that simple. The guise of public safety is the flag almost always waived. It is as simple as, "Oh a new law for public safety, that means more government, more taxes and less freedom." I am far more often right than wrong...

I think when people stop viewing the restrictions of their freedom as XXX control, and start viewing it as MANKIND control, perhaps we will start to reverse course!

Lastly. Those that appear to be "open minded" are in my mind the worst offenders. I understand those on one side seeking the control and the tax revenue, or the proposed 'cost saving' to their healthcare system. Their goal is clear. Those that see the erosion of rights as reasonable, are those that will continue to allow government to continue on this path. Government goes nowhere without a villain that those willing to point the finger at their neighbor are complicit in these wrongs doings.

Listen to the people in your government. How often are they making villains out of your neighbors to make their point.

When they come into your back yard and tell you not to BBQ because the smoke is toxic and you are risking the health of your neighbor; don't blame me! I stopped being duped by the 'reasonable' argument, for my safety, long, long ago. If my neighbor is a villain I want him to get his day in court, not tried by a mob in the public square!

-Piggy

[planetary]

Careful, boys. The libertarians are have found their soapboxes.

[wabashcr]

When they come into your back yard and tell you not to BBQ because the smoke is toxic and you are risking the health of your neighbor; don't blame me! I stopped being duped by the 'reasonable' argument, for my safety, long, long ago.

When the government can demonstrate that my BBQ increases my neighbors' chances of heart disease, stroke and lung cancer by 25-30%, I'll gladly stop doing it.

You say these infringements on individual freedoms are always done under the guise of public health or safety, like that's not a valid reason to prohibit or restrict something dangerous. Yet it's always false equivalencies (like my BBQ or offensive perfume), everything is dangerous, slippery slope arguments against public smoking bans.

If the government wants to try to stop me from smoking in my home, where I'm not hurting anyone other than myself, of course I would object. But why should I be allowed to expose other people against their will to something that very well could kill them? Doesn't their right supersede mine in this case? Like the old saying goes, my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.

[PigFish]

... would it be a net positive if I suggested that the XXXXists have as well? I think not!

Guilty as charged, labels don't offend me, especially when accurate! I am a libertarian (generally) and I will fight (rhetorically on this site) for the minds of my fellow smokers given the chance and the time.

Smoking is freedom! I am guilty of pushing both!!! Defend it, or the XXXXists will take it away from you (and me too). Persecution of industry (people, races, religeons) is not accidental or incidental. It is deliberate and planned.

Pick a side mates, your freedom to smoke is in the balance. If that is not common ground, I have never seen common ground! There is no middle ground, not anymore. You snooze today and you lose! Middle ground means you have lost 1/2 the battle already! Middle of the road is not enlightened, not in my mind. It means confused!!! Ask any highway patrolman!

-the Tolerant Pig!

[PigFish]

When the government can demonstrate that my BBQ increases my neighbors' chances of heart disease, stroke and lung cancer by 25-30%, I'll gladly stop doing it.

You say these infringements on individual freedoms are always done under the guise of public health or safety, like that's not a valid reason to prohibit or restrict something dangerous. Yet it's always false equivalencies (like my BBQ or offensive perfume), everything is dangerous, slippery slope arguments against public smoking bans.

If the government wants to try to stop me from smoking in my home, where I'm not hurting anyone other than myself, of course I would object. But why should I be allowed to expose other people against their will to something that very well could kill them? Doesn't their right supersede mine in this case? Like the old saying goes, my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.

... a government that can mandate that a business owner cannot allow smoking on his property, can (and will certainly eventually attempt) to limit your smoking in your own home. Your objection at that point will be too late! You will have already lost the battle.

An effective ban via manipulation of the tax code is still a ban. Only the simpletons amongst us don't understand this aspect of government. Many governments are well on their way to banning cigar smoking in private homes now. Just ask our friends abroad how easy it is to afford a box of cigars at $700.00 a box? How much is the retail price for a box of Monte 4's in Oz?

Frankly, if I really believed that my cigar smoking risked the life of my neighbor, that would mean that it was so toxic that it would kill me in short order, which is obviously not the case, I would not smoke. This is not even the case in cigarette smoking! I know people that have smoked for over 50 years!

If one believes that smoke is that toxic, I would suggest that they certainly not smoke at all. Furthermore if another is going to live their life by the datum of what their government can 'prove' to them, is good or bad for them, suggesting that they have little or no ability to assess risk on their own; I am afraid that we are so far apart on this issue and the very nature of government, that I see little or no point in discussing it much further on this level!

It is easy to see that man will abuse his neighbor, and that is why we have laws. Where the libertarian and statist part ways is in the understanding that government is made up of the very people (our neighbors) that are not perfect. In that way, the libertarian understands that government must be strong enough to survive and keep the peace, but constantly be restrained, also by law, so that it does not abuse the very people (the freedom) it was designed to protect.

Cheers mate! -Piggy

[wabashcr]

If one believes that smoke is that toxic, I would suggest that they certainly not smoke at all. Furthermore if another is going to live their life by the datum of what their government can 'prove' to them, is good or bad for them, suggesting that they have little or no ability to assess risk on their own; I am afraid that we are so far apart on this issue and the very nature of government, that I see little or no point in discussing it much further on this level!

How does your assessment of the risks of second hand smoke differ from the government's? Is that really part of your argument, that tobacco smoke isn't that toxic? Or that the dangers of second hand smoke are a myth propagated by the government? If so, you're right, this is probably where the discussion ends.

I didn't mean to suggest that the government's word is proof of anything, only that in order for them to deny me the right to something, proof had better exist. There's plenty of proof that second hand smoke, especially in confined indoor spaces, poses all sorts of health risks to non-smokers. That the government accepts this doesn't make it any more or less true.

I don't agree with the government's efforts to try to keep me from harming myself with tobacco smoke. Whether it's through taxation or other restrictions on the sale of tobacco, I don't need the government to protect me from myself. Many would argue that my cigar smoking increases my burden on society in terms of health care costs. If that's the road we're going down, then we'd better make fast food and tanning booths prohibitively expensive as well.

My personal feeling is that in an outdoor space, the dangers of second hand smoke are negligible. As such, I think a lot of the outdoor smoking bans are a step too far. My support for smoking bans is primarily limited to indoor areas where non-smoking patrons and employees are at a definite risk. In that case, I think non-smokers' right to breathe clean air supersedes my right to smoke. I don't believe this position makes it any more or less likely that the government will trample on my rights to harm only myself. You obviously disagree. If our government consists of our fallible neighbors, as you rightly described, I have a difficult time squaring that with the notion of government as a monolithic force determined to eliminate individual freedoms.

[PigFish]

How does your assessment of the risks of second hand smoke differ from the government's? Is that really part of your argument, that tobacco smoke isn't that toxic? Or that the dangers of second hand smoke are a myth propagated by the government? If so, you're right, this is probably where the discussion ends.

I didn't mean to suggest that the government's word is proof of anything, only that in order for them to deny me the right to something, proof had better exist. There's plenty of proof that second hand smoke, especially in confined indoor spaces, poses all sorts of health risks to non-smokers. That the government accepts this doesn't make it any more or less true.

I don't agree with the government's efforts to try to keep me from harming myself with tobacco smoke. Whether it's through taxation or other restrictions on the sale of tobacco, I don't need the government to protect me from myself. Many would argue that my cigar smoking increases my burden on society in terms of health care costs. If that's the road we're going down, then we'd better make fast food and tanning booths prohibitively expensive as well.

My personal feeling is that in an outdoor space, the dangers of second hand smoke are negligible. As such, I think a lot of the outdoor smoking bans are a step too far. My support for smoking bans is primarily limited to indoor areas where non-smoking patrons and employees are at a definite risk. In that case, I think non-smokers' right to breathe clean air supersedes my right to smoke. I don't believe this position makes it any more or less likely that the government will trample on my rights to harm only myself. You obviously disagree. If our government consists of our fallible neighbors, as you rightly described, I have a difficult time squaring that with the notion of government as a monolithic force determined to eliminate individual freedoms.

Your argument completely sidestepped the issue of private property! Your belief therefore is not backed up by the evidence before you. If your neighbors private property can be controlled to the extent that he/she cannot allow smoking in it, due to the ostensible risk factors, then your private property is not safe either.

Growing government is empirical! It is not theory or belief. You need only open your eyes to see it play out before you. It is also empirical, that as government grows, liberty shrinks. You need not believe me, just look at the aspects of your life, or if you are young, the lives of your parents, issues that were once a free choice, or optional, that are now controlled and mandatory. The existence of a weightier hand of government at all levels is readily apparent.

You suggest that if I smoke in a room with another, that our risk of cancer, or his is increased by 25% or more! Hogwash.... Along those lines then, if it were proven to only increase the risk by 24% then it is acceptable? Who draws the line and where does it get drawn, with smoking or with anything else?

You see when one wants to get detailed about specifics then one must be open to all statistics, or do you just wish to pick and choose those that support your belief? Should then everything that represents a certain health risk be controlled? Who sets the control and where does it stop?

You apparently seem to believe that it will stop at your front door and this is clearly an error as I see it. The precedent for your agreement, the nature of the danger of second-hand smoke, if true then can be applied to those who live within, or perhaps even near your domicile. Your own argument is used against you; you lose!

Moreover you did not address the act of taxing a substance into the realm where it no longer becomes commercially viable. This represents ostensible banishment if not an actual ban. You are not protected their either. I suppose you are if you are rich!

Like it or not, it is clear, look around you, that your mindset leads to the abolishment of tobacco products. Is the tide of this topic, for or against your position as a smoker?

Anyone???

Anyone out there thinking that it is getting easier to enjoy a cigar? If you were betting or optioning a position of less restriction or more restriction, where would you make money verses lose it?

And finally. There are all sorts of articles about the dangers of many things. Depending on your trust of the source, there are points that can be made and argued. The fact that your right to smoke is dwindling IS REAL, not hypothetical or arguable. This separates what is a REAL threat, verses what is a perceived or theoretical threat! I will say that again. The threat to your freedom to smoke is not debatable, it is real.

If one is (rhetorically) too stupid to consider another's life when smoking as viewed by those in high office, then you are obviously too stupid to know what is good for you and therefore there is alway room for more stringent control based on the stupidity argument. More stringent control comes from the flaws of allowing any of the risky behavior in the first place. The 'open-minded' approach is therefore the position of the loser! The intent was never to reduce your smoking, but to eliminate it.

As a smoker, you are going to lose and it is just a matter of time! The statist is not open-minded about your will, freedom or private property. You will do what he states eventually, because you have proven to be open-minded to his approach in the past. You are therefore sending the signals to those that wish to govern you, that you are willing and wanting to be controlled by them.

The mistake is in not knowing your adversary! Not recognizing the intent of your aversely means that you have already agreed to lose... you just don't know it yet.

That is my point! -Ray

[Orion21]

Ray is on point. You all who feel it's reasonable to ban smoking in bars, etc., are missing the point completely. Everything associated with Government control is a slippery slope. When in the history of humankind has Government announced to it's citizens:

"Thank you all so much for your support and trust! We have made the decision that we as a society have reached the appropriate balance of freedoms and regulation. Go about your lives and live them to the fullest!"

This does not exist.

When the Government is involved in providing you anything you have to play by their rules. This means smoking bans based on long term cost studies claiming it will cost X,XXX,XXX,XXX,XXX to the government run healthcare systems over the next XX years if it isn't curbed. It means a lot of things from a lot of people forever. But based on the slippery slope theory it will never stop. In order to justify providing more and more Government will require more and more from you. More taxes, more behavior modification and more compliance. The Utopian society many in government would like to create seems great in theory, but in reality it seems like just a bunch of brainwashed robots existing in a hypothetical bubble of sameness. This is not the life I wish to live, but sadly it seems to be the reality more and more people seem resigned to accepting.

[shlomo]

Im gonna go buy a gun and start randomly waving it around in my kitchen. If a few bullets fly out the window and hit the kids in the park, too bad. They should have been wearing vests! Its my property and I'll do as I please.

I have never seen a well researched paper that has been peer reviewed stating that random gun shots in my kitchen can be dangerous, therefore it must not be true!

Happy Friday!

[wabashcr]

Your argument completely sidestepped the issue of private property! Your belief therefore is not backed up by the evidence before you. If your neighbors private property can be controlled to the extent that he/she cannot allow smoking in it, due to the ostensible risk factors, then your private property is not safe either.

My residence is neither a public business nor a place of employment, both of which are governed completely differently for reasons obvious to anyone. There is no logical equivalence.

Growing government is empirical! It is not theory or belief. You need only open your eyes to see it play out before you. It is also empirical, that as government grows, liberty shrinks. You need not believe me, just look at the aspects of your life, or if you are young, the lives of your parents, issues that were once a free choice, or optional, that are now controlled and mandatory. The existence of a weightier hand of government at all levels is readily apparent.

I don't disagree with this generally, but it's not always applicable, especially when it comes to public health and adjudicating conflicting rights, such is the case here.

You suggest that if I smoke in a room with another, that our risk of cancer, or his is increased by 25% or more! Hogwash.... Along those lines then, if it were proven to only increase the risk by 24% then it is acceptable? Who draws the line and where does it get drawn, with smoking or with anything else?

You see when one wants to get detailed about specifics then one must be open to all statistics, or do you just wish to pick and choose those that support your belief? Should then everything that represents a certain health risk be controlled? Who sets the control and where does it stop?

This is more faulty logic. Of course any answer would be arbitrary, which you seem to think supports the position that government should never interfere. But turning the question around, how high would the risk have to be in order for the government to step in? 50%? 90%? At some point someone has to stop people from killing each other.

Instead of dealing in hypotheticals, I'll say that a 25% increase in the risk of heart disease, stroke and lung cancer among non smokers is more harmful than taking away my right to smoke in a bar or restaurant, or an owner's right to allow smoking. You're free to disagree, but I think we all know the defense of the smoker in this case can only be a selfish one.

You apparently seem to believe that it will stop at your front door and this is clearly an error as I see it. The precedent for your agreement, the nature of the danger of second-hand smoke, if true then can be applied to those who live within, or perhaps even near your domicile. Your own argument is used against you; you lose!

Again, this logic just doesn't follow. Homes and businesses are always subject to separate laws and regulations. This conclusion is conjecture at best, irrational fear at worst.

Moreover you did not address the act of taxing a substance into the realm where it no longer becomes commercially viable. This represents ostensible banishment if not an actual ban. You are not protected their either. I suppose you are if you are rich!

I said in against it. I can support banning smoking in restaurants and bars and oppose banning smoking altogether. The rationale behind the two scenarios is vastly different. They aren't using the second hand smoke argument to ban smoking altogether. They're trying to keep us from killing ourselves, which is not protecting anyone's rights.

Like it or not, it is clear, look around you, that your mindset leads to the abolishment of tobacco products. Is the tide of this topic, for or against your position as a smoker?

Anyone???

Anyone out there thinking that it is getting easier to enjoy a cigar? If you were betting or optioning a position of less restriction or more restriction, where would you make money verses lose it?

Of course it's getting harder to smoke in public. I'm in favor of that, and I refuse to support what I believe to be a position that puts non smokers' health in jeopardy just because I'm afraid of some perceived slippery slope effect. If the end result is that I can't smoke anymore, I'll be upset, and I will fight it tooth and nail. But I'm not compromising my beliefs to fight a battle I don't agree with 20 years upstream. The truth is there's a whole universe between not smoking in restaurants and not smoking in my home.

And finally. There are all sorts of articles about the dangers of many things. Depending on your trust of the source, there are points that can be made and argued. The fact that your right to smoke is dwindling IS REAL, not hypothetical or arguable. This separates what is a REAL threat, verses what is a perceived or theoretical threat! I will say that again. The threat to your freedom to smoke is not debatable, it is real.

This is only relevant if you don't think second hand smoke is harmful. I'll ask again, is that part of your argument? If so, we're both wasting our time.

If one is (rhetorically) too stupid to consider another's life when smoking as viewed by those in high office, then you are obviously too stupid to know what is good for you and therefore there is alway room for more stringent control based on the stupidity argument. More stringent control comes from the flaws of allowing any of the risky behavior in the first place. The 'open-minded' approach is therefore the position of the loser! The intent was never to reduce your smoking, but to eliminate it.

Again, I'm happy to take up arms to fight for my right to smoke as long as I'm not harming anyone other than myself. Truth be told this is the only position that has any chance in the court of public opinion anyway. If your position doesn't allow for the notion that non smokers' health risks should be heavily considered, good luck to you. You're going to be cannon fodder in the end.

As a smoker, you are going to lose and it is just a matter of time! The statist is not open-minded about your will, freedom or private property. You will do what he states eventually, because you have proven to be open-minded to his approach in the past. You are therefore sending the signals to those that wish to govern you, that you are willing and wanting to be controlled by them.

The mistake is in not knowing your adversary! Not recognizing the intent of your aversely means that you have already agreed to lose... you just don't know it yet.

That is my point! -Ray

You say this, but it's all conjecture starting from a view that government is only concerned with erosion of personal liberties. Of course that's at the heart of our disagreement. I certainly don't begrudge you that. I enjoy the respectful debate, and hope nothing I've said has been taken as a personal offense.

Cheers

Chris

PS: I hope this formats properly as I've typed it out on my phone via tapatalk while enjoying a refreshingly vibrant RyJ Mille Fleur.

[scar]

You don't owe anyone a job, but you do owe your employees a safe and healthy workplace.

I do not owe my employees a safe and healthy workplace. They should be accountable for their own safety. You feel my place is unsafe, by all means don't work here. No one is forcing you to. No one is forcing you to walk through my door. My place is privately owned and the public is invited, not forced, to come in. They are also free to make up their own mind as to the safety of my place and chose not to come in. But instead of being accountable for your own safety you chose to support regulations that force me to comply with your version of safety. Tell ya what wabashcr, you go out and buy a bar and make it into your perfect picture of a safe for all establishment. I will stop by and have a burger and a beer and respect your rights and not smoke. I wont try to regulate you you over to my side of thinking, I promise.

[StumpyJoe]

Chris and Pigfish...great discussion and I love how polite it is.

A couple of points for Chris to consider...

Several of the local governments in my area have made multiple family dwellings (e.g. Apartments, condominiums, townhomes, etc) no smoking zones. This makes it illegal to smoke in your own home. If you were to say then a person should buy a free standing single family home then wouldn't you also be saying that the members of society that cannot afford a house cannot smoke in their home while those who are wealthier do not have their rights encumbered?

I believe you also made the point in which smoking outdoors has a negligible health impact on non-smokers. If that is accurate, I should be able to smoke in a public park. And yet that is now illegal in the city I reside in.

There will be a day when government not only comes to your door but insists on having access to your home. They will start with you cannot smoke in your backyard because the smoke can go over your neighbor's fence. Then you will smoke in your house and they will tell you to close your windows. Then they will tell you you cannot smoke in your house because you are not the only person in your house.

I think we should refocus on not the trees but the forest. Current government will is consistently anti-smoking. It is harder to smoke now than in the past. That is the plain and unmistakable truth of the matter. The goal is to end smoking...not cigarette smoking or pipe smoking or cigar smoking...smoking of all kinds....except maybe marijuana...and I don't know how that is the exception to the rule!!!

With that said,

Gentlemen, smoke 'em if you got 'em!

[joeruby]

I do not owe my employees a safe and healthy workplace. They should be accountable for their own safety. You feel my place is unsafe, by all means don't work here. No one is forcing you to. No one is forcing you to walk through my door. My place is privately owned and the public is invited, not forced, to come in.

That is a huge blanket statement scar, and by the way, welcome.

There have been many deaths and injuries due to unsafe workplace practices in years gone by in factories , construction sites, etc. and you only have to look at some third world countries where work places have not been made safe to see the difference. If governments did not force employers to comply to, at the very least, a minimum code of health and safety, then where would we be? and that is a good thing.

However I do see the point you are trying to make in relation to bars and smoking. It can be seen by many as just a simple extension of the above.

This is a great debate.

[joeruby]

. The goal is to end smoking...not cigarette smoking or pipe smoking or cigar smoking...smoking of all kinds....except maybe marijuana...and I don't know how that is the exception to the rule!!!

With that said,

Gentlemen, smoke 'em if you got 'em!

Totally agree with the above. Maybe it's the marijuana that's influencing some of these great ideas our pollies are having, LOL

[CdnLimitada]

So you think that a person should purchase a business, pay taxes,license fees, and other related costs to run that business, then because you think it would be nice to not smell smoke a law should be passed telling the owner what he can do? How about you make choice not to go there. If you don't want to smell smoke at work, make a choice to work somewhere else. You have that choice. The bar/restaurant owner should have that choice in the place he pays for. See how well it can work if everyone has choices. If this is how you feel you should start saving for that island, because the more people that think like that the sooner you will be buying it.

Sure, choices are nice.

It would be good to have a choice as a business owner. Choosing to only serve smokers in a restaurant seems like a crappy business plan but I guess in an ideal world, owners could choose that. That is why I am for smoking lounges. Thinking people (especially in the US) will go into a restaurant that has the old smoking section model wouldn't work out too well I would think. I wouldn't go to one often and not at all with the kids but I do again see your point of "choosing" that.

It starts to blur and become more complex when other issues are thrown in the mix. Do you have these "choices" for road safety, gun control, etc, etc.? Is becoming a total anarchist society the answer to smoking laws? Take the government out of everything or just smoking?

Tending to believe in living in the real world I see the things I suggested as a bridge. You have both sides happy/unhappy. Not total freedom but not a nanny state either.