Smoking Laws in NY and NJ

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Oh, I don't hate it at all. I just think it would be awesome if bars banned it. Seriously I don't have a HUGE issue with it, just would "prefer" if it was banned in public areas.

Ditto. Do it in your own home all you want, although I'd want someone with a small child to be responsible about it. In public places, because of the number of IRRESPONSIBLE and rude smokers, it needs to be banned. They had their chance and didn't make good with it.

I just wish they'd start enforcing littering laws on smokers. If I ate some chicken on a stick from the Chinese restaurant and tossed the stick out of my car when finished, I'd expect to hear sirens and a $500 deduction from my checking account. I didn't even light my trash on fire!

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Yup, same here. Littering laws are DEFINITELY not enforced on smokers. And yes I can see the other side's argument, but how can you seriously justify a habit that's been proving to be more damaging to others than yourself?

In that same story I quoted above, one girl was like, "Well they can just avoid us." Why should we have to go out of the way to accommodate your habit?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Redskins_P

....I've heard that in Europe everyone smokes....I mean EVERYONE. I had my first hand experience in South America and let me tell you, kids down there start smoking much earlier than here.

I was there last summer and let me tell you, people there smoke, a lot. I was shocked to see so many people smoking. Hell, when I arrived in Amsterdam airport I was impressed to see people smoking inside the airport as they walked about. I latter learned that it was illegal to smoke inside the airport but nobody gave a damn. Italy took the cake though, the streets were littered with cigarettes buds. You should have seen Saint Peter's Square!

[Beemnseven]

To me, the issue isn't about smokers rights vs. non-smokers rights. It's about private property rights.

If I started a restaurant, why should the government be in a position to decide for me whether I can or cannot allow smoking on my property?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

To me, the issue isn't about smokers rights vs. non-smokers rights. It's about private property rights.

If I started a restaurant, why should the government be in a position to decide for me whether I can or cannot allow smoking on my property?

Just because I own some land it doesn't mean I can set up shop and do whatever I want with it.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Just because I own some land it doesn't mean I can set up shop and do whatever I want with it.

The topic is not "whatever you want", it's smoking.

[jamf]

I hate kissing a smoker...

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

To me, the issue isn't about smokers rights vs. non-smokers rights. It's about private property rights.

If I started a restaurant, why should the government be in a position to decide for me whether I can or cannot allow smoking on my property?

Well, the government decides a lot of things you can do on business property, so why should smoking not be one of them?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Just because I own some land it doesn't mean I can set up shop and do whatever I want with it.

Right. You cannot interfere with the rights of someone else. Apart from that, it's a free country -- at least, that's what it's supposedto be.

Originally Posted by TheMalcomConnection

Well, the government decides a lot of things you can do on business property, so why should smoking not be one of them?

The short answer to your question is, why give the government one more reason to intrude into the lives of private property owners?

Now, here’s the long answer. As an example to your point Malcom, let’s use the Department of Health argument -- What's the difference between the government instituting food safety standards and doing the same with smoking?

The difference is that you can protect yourself from second hand smoke (if you're a non-smoker) and first-hand smoke (if you are a smoker): you can leave the restaurant, or you can quit. However, the same is not true of food-borne illnesses. In the latter case, the government is adhering to its legitimate purpose of protecting the rights of life, liberty and property of individuals through force or fraud. Since no one can protect themselves from the hazards of food-borne illnesses, short of not eating out, the government has the responsibility to guard against a threat that an individual otherwise cannot guard him or herself against.

Bottom line, government has the power and the obligation to protect your rights from others. It doesn’t have the power, nor the resources to protect you from yourself.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Actually, you can really say the same thing for smoking. I think you're only thinking about the smokers, I'm talking about the non-smokers. Should the government not protect our health from smokers?

[PWNED]

the only thing i think girls hsould be able to smoke are poles. thats win-win baby.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Actually, you can really say the same thing for smoking. I think you're only thinking about the smokers, I'm talking about the non-smokers. Should the government not protect our health from smokers?

Again, isn't that something that non-smokers can do for themselves? I mean, if you're in a restaurant with 300 other people and they're all smoking and you're not, is it the government's role to bust in there and tell everyone to put out their cigarettes, or is it your responsibility to leave?

[PWNED]

well beemn, its not a majority vote type of thing i wouldnt think. i would think its a HEALTH thing.

[PWNED]

the bottom line question for me is, why should nonsmokers have to adapt to someone elses habit that hurts both people?

sorry to butt into the argument guys but i have to throw my two cents in

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by PWNED

well beemn, its not a majority vote type of thing i wouldnt think. i would think its a HEALTH thing ... the bottom line question for me is, why should nonsmokers have to adapt to someone elses habit that hurts both people?

My argument is they don't have to "adapt". Non-smokers can take matters of health into their own hands and leave a smoke-filled restaurant, and go to a non-smoking one.

According to those that favor smoking bans, there would be no restaurants that a smoker could go to. In a free country and in free markets, everyone has a choice.