I just finished filling out my absentee ballot right now and realized after finishing it that there was something wrong with one of the issues. Basically, there are two so-called "anti-smoking" issues you can vote on, but only one of them actually bans smoking in public places. The other issue was funded by tobacco companies and basically keeps smoke in restaurants and many public places and overturns smoke-free laws already in place. However, you wouldn't know it based on how the issue was worded on the ballot.

It pisses me off because I really cared about getting smoke out of public places and the tobacco companies tricked me into voting for a pro-smoking issue on the ballot. Check out the news report below and see for yourself how fucked up this is.

http://www.smokefreeohio.org/oh/NBCNightlyNews.wmv

regardless of the sketchy ballot, I still think banning smoking in public places is pretty freakin' ridiculous.

Should have gotten that Bachelor's in Reading Comprehension.

Oops.

Why? I hate smelling that shit. It ruins a perfectly good meal or a movie. I could let it slide at a ball game, but that's usually outdoors.

I should NOT have to smell that crap, just as I should NOT have to listen to a (LOUD) cell phone conversation, or watch a woman breastfeeding.

One of those has my tongue in its cheek.

it's been in place here for a few months now and it works well.

Unless you smoke...

lemme guess, you're better than that.

I suspect tongue in cheek for the 'don't have to watch a woman breast feed.' It kills me silly how this bothers people. I hope this is not something you'd want to ban.

man, all these posts about smoking plus the whiskey makes me want a damn cigarette.

I just watched my grandfather die from emphysema. And let me tell you it ain't pretty. If there's one thing he taught me more than anything else, it's don't smoke.

Here, smoking is now prohibited in all places where food or drinks are served, and it makes for a much better, cleaner environment. I don't have a huge problem with people smoking, but when cunts ash on me and blow smoke in my face, i have a problem. Now i don't have to worry so much.

so you're better than that.

I love how non-smokers act like smokers must not know what smoking does.

We must think this shit has vitamins in it or something, huh?

So what did you do to get a girl to ash on you and blow smoke in your face?

also, condolences.

It sucks to lose anyone you love, especially when it was essentially self inflicted and preventable.

i watched my grandmother die of lung cancer this summer, and even though i hated it i still wanted to smoke when i got back home. i've been completely smoke-free for a week (haven't bought a pack in a few months) and i'm crossing my fingers that the desire will go away someday.

i fucking love to smoke after meals and while drinking, but i completely respect that others might not want to put up with it. i just think it should be up to the owner of the establishment, then up to the patrons as to whether they want to go there or not.

think of it like a fine mist of alcohol being evenly dispersed through the air. It doesn't bother me, unless the smell stays in my clothes. I don't want to be unnecessarily washing what are otherwise clean clothes.

understood

my problem with "public places" is that that has led to things like no smoking outdoors in certain parts of this country.

I think it's fine to not have smoking sections INSIDE a restaurant but to make it illegal is silly. It should be up to the business owner I think.

Also, if a smoker needs a smoke that bad they can just go outside. However, if they're told they can't even smoke outside because it is a public place that is where it gets ridiculous, IMO.

No smoking inside restaurants and such has been around here where I live for a few years now. THat doesn't bother me. Are they gonna tell me I can't smoke in my car next or my private property?

it's a slippery slope, I tell ya. A slippery slope.

the correct answer

Yep, we've got two anti-smoking propositions on the ballot in AZ this year - one backed by the American Lung Association, hospitals, and the surgeon general (proposition 201) and one backed by RJ Reynolds (proposition 206). Guess which one has the bigger budget and therefore flashier ads and has plastered the city with their signs? What's worse, the one backed by RJR actually has absolutely no enforcement - if it gets voted in, it says that businesses have to follow the rules, but there are no penalties for violations. The worst, however, is that the RJR prop also obliterates any other attempts to change the law in the future - any future anti-smoking propositions would have to repeal 206 before it could take effect.

As for the "morality" of anti-smoking laws, we've had this argument several times on Obner before. I'll sum it up for anyone who's missed out: people like me who hate smoking and avoid it, whether due to health problems or just not liking to be around it, have had to live a life stifled by smokers. The smokers who don't see that they're stepping on the majority of people's freedom to breathe non-smoke filled air see this as an infringement of some "right" they mistakenly believe they have (it's a privelege, like driving, not a right. When priveleges are abused as smoking has been, they are taken away.)

Okay, let the flamewar begin. I'll see ya later.

The driving privilege is a horrendous analogy. You need to prove knowledge of traffic laws and ability to operate a vehicle to drive legally. All you need to smoke is be 18 or older. If you abuse your driving, you as an individual are punished. Smoking bans affect all smokers regardless of how responsible/conscientous-of-non-smokers they have been in the past. Drinking is a much better fit if you're going to play the privilege card.

Is the tobacco prop arguably unethical? Yes. I voted for it anyway based on how it was worded plus what Hegel-Ohs already said. I also voted for the "smoke free" bill because it was too damn long and filled with legalese to make a distinction. I read "smoke ban", said fine, and stopped giving a fuck. Phil's point about reading comprehension is valid, but what gets me is how non-intuitive it is for a non-resident absentee to find information on issues. If I don't read the local paper and am not subjected to TV ads, where am I supposed to find info about this? The League of Women Voters had a good voter guide for federal and state candidates, but that was it.

My attitude on smoking bans:
Restaurants - fine, though I don't see a problem with properly-ventilated smoking areas. Yes, the technology exists. Heathrow has smoking sections within the terminal itself without affecting the adjacent space. It may be costly, so it's up to the owner if they think it is worth the business.

Concert venues - see above

Bars - Why else would you go to a bar besides to drink or support other people drinking? If that's the case, you forfeit your right to complain about an individual's detriment to your health on someone else's property.

Unenclosed outdoor space - You gotta be fucking kidding me.

Smoking in public places was banned in Scotland last March.

It's not effected me because I don't smoke and don't go to public places.

You are right that this discussion has happened many times. I won't respond to the rest because it has already been done. However, I just wanted to ask how exactly smokers have supposedly abused this privelege? If anything, these bans are more like prohibition based around a general idea that second hand smoke is bad for you. First the said, hey, smoke on airplanes, in restaurantsin the movie theater, etc. Then all of a sudden they are saying, hey, you can't smoke here. It's not like if I smoked in a the smoking section of a restaurant I would get up and go blow smoke in the faces of people who were not in the smoking section. I don't see how you can quanitify abuse of smoking in public places because I just don't see that ever happening.

If it is true that second hand smoke is really bad for you then ok, let's make it so that enclosed places like restaurants and airplanes, etc have no smoking rules. But if this law is just because whiny-ass non smoker "just don't like the smell" then they can go screw themselves. That is a ridiculous preferential law and has nothing to do with the benefit of all people regardless of smoking preference.

i'm glad i never smoked because i have the willpower of a 3 year old.

The only one that fires me up this election season is the California tax on cigarettes. I can't believe that tax issues are allowed to be put on the ballot by voter initative like that there.

every time someone says "whiny non-smokers" i think of the huge inconvenience that whiney smokers have now. they have to walk 5 feet to go outside.

waaaaaaah.

Like the man said in that piece, "the old 'wolves in sheeps clothing' tactic." Unfortunately the tobaco industry would not be the first or last to employ some twisted deception a la drug companies' generic vs.brand name prices for the same drug.

smokeing should be banned in indoor public blaces exlcuding bars where the owner wants to keep it.

outdoors is fair fuckin game.