LOL. I read that the date it was printed in a paper. I can't blame them. MN in the winter is not, I presume, a nice time to step outside for smoking and would be a big incentive to just avoid the experience altogether on the really cold and frozen nights.

For those who do step outside to smoke at work, we have smoking buddies. At my current location, there are three companies and two organizations housed in the facility. I have met folks from the other groups, whereas many of those who don't smoke haven't even the knowledge that the other companies exist. Once, one of the smokers from one of the companies was in dire need of a particular solvent and asked if I had any that he could borrow, so my smoking even facilitated collaboration (small as it was). So, although I don't want to glamorize smoking at all (I do want to quit), the "smoking buddies" have a network, and it's a tight one. A smoking buddy from building where I used to be located, has since moved to another organization. Because of this smokers's network, we collaborated on a project with this other organization.

Thus, the ban (whether at pubs, restaurants, or work) does indeed have the potential of glamorizing smoking, and that shouldn't happen.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

It was 2006.

It was ruled a suicide by two independent investigations. KPLC 7 News, Lake Charles, Louisiana |D.A. Closes Gerald Washington Case

Nice try, but in the end, failure.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

I oppose a smoking ban too, but unfortunatly it looks like it will be in place here on july 1st.

__________________
Terrornoia: how the propa-ugandists used the omni-territorialization of terror for the fundamen-talismanization of criminal law in a multi-cultus-ritualistic society

It's a process that takes decades to play itself out.
I remember the old trolley cars that were still in use in the 70's had ashtrays and "No Smoking" signs.
I remember smoking on trains and airplanes, and we used to tell how old computer equipment was from how yellow it had become from smoking in the office.
Smoking was glamorous, from the old movies where beautiful women would ask men to "Cigarette Me", there is one John Wayne film in particular where he plays a naval officer who develops the concept of "jeep" aircraft carriers, where he lights up a cigarette in every single scene, including the scene when he wakes up in the sickbay after suffering a heart attack, he reaches for the cigarettes on the stand next to the bed, holds up the pack to show the doctor and asks "OK?", and the doctor replies "I don't see why not".
Now the anti-smoking movement has taken over, and it's payback time for all the smoke blown in the faces of nonsmokers for the last couple of hundred years.

Any health actuary will tell you that smoking reduces health care costs, yet we have huge judgments against tobacco companies to pay smoking related health care costs, based on the nonsensical theory that if these people didn't get their smoking related disease they would have lead long happy disease free lives.
But non-smokers get sick and die, too. And they get diseases that are more costly to treat, and they hang on longer, so the treatments last longer and cost even more.
Have you ever heard of a discount for smokers from insurance companies?
Some companies charge smokers more, just because they can, because no one is going to stand up and defend smoking, because they are the new lepers.
You see it in this forum, there is hardly a discussion on the cost of health care where someone doesn't blame the high cost of health care on "Personal choices", yet the reality is that smoking and drinking reduce health care costs, but they can be scapegoated because they are the new "despised minority".
And it's OK to hate them, you are looked down on if you hate people because of their skin color, or their religion, or their language or their culture, but it's fine to trash people who smoke and drink.
Eventually the society will figure out that allowing the largely unregulated sale of a highly addictive substance is probably not a good idea, and tobacco will go away, and people will wonder what the people in old movies are doing when they light up.
Until then smokers and drinkers will feel the pent up frustration that society feels because they are the designated punching bag at this moment in history.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

I can echo this. I personally know of a bar whose business has suffered enormously since the smoking ban went into effect. Actually, the owner of the bar still smokes in her bar when she's there and allows customers to do the same, stating that she'll pay the fine if it comes to that. But, nobody smokes when she isn't there. In that bar, most of the staff and most of the customers smoke. A lot of customers have defected to go to some kind of new place to drink that exploits a loophole in the law. If a bar recasts itself as primarily a tobacco seller, it can allow smoking. So, a lot of bars are buying up tobacco products to sell and applying for this new kind of license in the hopes of recovering what these bans have done to their businesses.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

It occurs to me that this is the problem with partial prohibitionist legislation - as diligently as people work for bans, there is invariably a loophole that gets exploited. I remember this from my time in Pittsburgh, where there were a disproportionate number of blue laws preventing alcohol sale after 9 PM, bars from being open on Sundays, clubs from being open after 2 AM, etc. With each of these things, a loophole was found and exploited. When it was closed, another was found and exploited.

I sometimes wonder if government legislators don't allow these loopholes so that they can talk out of both sides of their mouths - pandering to the nanny-staters while keeping the coffers full and preventing the devastating economic affects of vice prohibition.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Nevada recently passed a smoking ban. I don't go to bars in the first place but I think it's really bizarre that people are so willing to make smokers suffer. I really sympathize with how smokers are constantly kicked around by the self righteous.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Ironically, I don't much care. I've been both smoker and non-smoker as an adult (I smoked through college and until about age 24, quit for a couple of years, and then picked it up again recently during a tumultuous time in my life). As a smoker, I don't mind going outside, smoking bans or not. I wouldn't smoke in restaurants that allowed smoking because I understand finding the smell of smoke gross when eating. I don't smoke inside my house and don't mind standing in my back yard to do it.

I don't find the fact of the ban to really be any sort of inconvenience to me personally, except, perhaps on long plane rides. Of course, if the crusaders got over the top enough, I'd simply start breaking the law. For instance, if there were a ban on smoking while in your car, I would ignore it and periodically pay the ticket(s), chalking this up to the same thing as another tax on cigarettes. I've always operated (in this and all things) on doing my best, within reason, not to bother others. The laws themselves are of little consequence to me. With things like drugs/alcohol/cigarettes/sex/whatever, I operate based on my own moral code and pay no attention to the law in terms of whether or not I do it. This is to say, I don't drive around drunk because of the risk I would pose, but if I felt like doing some drugs in my living room, the the laws of nanny-staters would play no part in that decision. I would break this law with impunity and without remorse.

But, there are two prevailing truths. 1) People like to control other people's behavior and 2) Most people do not care about being considerate. This is what leads to legislation that wastes time and money on things that really ought to be left up to common courtesy.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

People tend to complain when they lose their rights

Good, but this would probably happen regardless of the ban. With the demand for smoke free pubs or bars rising, so too would the amount of such establishments rise. Smoke-free bars and bars that permit smoking can coexist, and atleast that way all the evil, bad smokers will be in one place, instead of spread across town standing in front of doorways.

__________________
"Officeholders are the agents of the people, not their masters."- Grover Cleveland

The 10 Planks of the American Populist Party
-Liberty
-The Bill of Rights
-Decentralization
-Democratic Process
-Non-agression
-Constitutional gov't
-Anti-militarism
-Oversight in gov't
-Read the Bills Act
-Accountability

Fanatical anti-smoker legislation is bigotry dressed up as political correctness.

__________________
"Officeholders are the agents of the people, not their masters."- Grover Cleveland

The 10 Planks of the American Populist Party
-Liberty
-The Bill of Rights
-Decentralization
-Democratic Process
-Non-agression
-Constitutional gov't
-Anti-militarism
-Oversight in gov't
-Read the Bills Act
-Accountability

How is smoking a "right?"

And "bigotry?" Seriously. That's just stupid.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

How isn't it? I have the right to smoke just as you have the right to leave my vicinity if my smoking bothers you, neither of us, however, can force the other to do something against their will.

__________________
"Officeholders are the agents of the people, not their masters."- Grover Cleveland

The 10 Planks of the American Populist Party
-Liberty
-The Bill of Rights
-Decentralization
-Democratic Process
-Non-agression
-Constitutional gov't
-Anti-militarism
-Oversight in gov't
-Read the Bills Act
-Accountability

Oh, the 'antis' are already well beyond smoking bans in bars, private clubs, etc. They are already onto cars (you are killing the kids and/or a source of litter), beaches and parks, (same thing), apartment bans (you are as source of fire and second hand smoke creeping out windows and up into other places, etc)--you name the place and they have the excuse to bully you.

Now even town bans such as those surfacing in California where you can't even smoke in the town itself.

What I found absolutely laughably hypocritical is that one of these "No Smoking in Town Limits" towns in CA is that it posted its prohibition sign when entering town with the following at the bottom--'medicinal' marijuana excepted. You see, to many of these 'anti' types, smoking pot is the fab, and smoking tobacco is the not. Sanctimonious harassment of smokers by the 'antis' has become a fanaticism and 'radical chic' movement and utter hypocrisy to the point of insanity.

That is pretty much how I see it in a nutshell.

And that is why I pointed out the alcohol in public scenario in many of the past posts how the table can be easily turned when it comes to the vices one perfers to indulge rather than condemn. I even cited how arguments can be made for zero tolerance driving laws, etc.

And sure enough, early this morning I was dropping someone off at a local hospital. I was observing the trendy new signs at this hospital that others now follow suit: 'This is a non smoking campus (given the second hand smoke argument doesn't work outside) with instructions how to quit. I see that at colleges now too, etc. But hey, at least they are honest about their intent and it's their private property so they have every right to do that because it's their property.

I opened USA TODAY whilst in the waiting room, and what very coincidentally appeared? A full page ad containing the following:

Full-Page Ad in USA TODAY Says Ignition Interlocks are Good for Lindsay Lohan, Bad for Moderate Social Drinkers

Talk about perfect timing for what I said. And the ABA is correct too. Ignition Interlock providers and 'anti' alcohol people are indeed looking to eventually interlock all cars with a zero tolerance policy, and are using the same 'creeping' method to soften the public bit by bit and inch by inch with 'newer and tougher' restrictions all aimed at getting to that final goal. I already know that from the course of my own work.

Old Lindsay isn't happy today about the ad and is threatening to sue according to reports:

Lindsay to Liquor Industry: You're Full of Schlitz - TMZ.com

You can see the full page ad in that link too.

Sigh.

So you think that you have a right to stand next to me and smoke and pollute my air, and that my only recourse is to leave? How is that not forcing someone to do something against their will?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears