NYE Smoking Protest

[BagAJellyDonuts]

A new year, a new governor. I guess the objective of the protest is to make enough noise that we find out if Gov Rick wants to put his neck on the line early. I agree with the concept of allowing local government or the bar owners set the standard. I did not agree with how casinos were allowed a free pass on the original legislation. But than again when the "current" casinos wrote and had their BS legislation about where and how other casinos and racinos were located, what a suprise?

I guess I don't want a do all, be all nanny state.

[Novine]

Every time I'm able to go into a restaurant or bar or go see a concert and not have my meal ruined by the smell of smoke or come home smelling like an ashtray, I'm thankful that the smoking ban was passed. I'm assuming that most smokers have managed to destroy their ability to smell to the point that they can't tell how their habit fouls the air for everyone else. But for those of us who can still smell, the stench of secondhand smoke permeated everything it came in contact with as it drifted through a restaurant or bar or concert venue.

[socks_mahoney]

As far as Gov. Ricky goes......

I prefer the title "Nerd in Chief"

[DanFromDetroit]

Come on. For real, only up until a few years ago was there any real smoke free establishments and usually those were the family coney places really. Not any of the bars I went to were smoke free until they were forced to, not one. Sure there were a few that went smoke free just before the ban, but before that there were very few choices if any to have a legitmate smoke free night out on the town.

Well, maybe you should have looked harder- I can think of several that I frequented that were smoke free & several that weren't. Most of the time I chose the latter & sometimes I didn't, but it was my choice. Now it's not and that's what irritates me. Let me make my own decisions, what's next? As long as the government doesn't trust me to make up my own mind, they'll be making my choices for me. 4Loko for example, I didn't like it but I've drank it and not gotten raped or anything. Why can't I buy it anymore? Because someone in Lansing [[and now DC) decided I couldn't handle it. So guess what, now I mix my own vodka and Redbull. It's less convenient & that pisses me off.

[reddog289]

Novine, I see your point. I can relate to it while eating at one of my former favorite Coney joints. It went from all smoking to no smoking and it really smelled worse. I smoke myself, But I have never smelled a greasier resturant in my life. Guess your right, Clear the air and you will smell things you havn't smelled before.

[1KielsonDrive]

Banning smoking in bars is not killing the bar business - IT'S THE ECONOMY - STUPID!

[adamjab19]

Well, maybe you should have looked harder- I can think of several that I frequented that were smoke free & several that weren't. Most of the time I chose the latter & sometimes I didn't, but it was my choice. Now it's not and that's what irritates me. Let me make my own decisions, what's next? As long as the government doesn't trust me to make up my own mind, they'll be making my choices for me. 4Loko for example, I didn't like it but I've drank it and not gotten raped or anything. Why can't I buy it anymore? Because someone in Lansing [[and now DC) decided I couldn't handle it. So guess what, now I mix my own vodka and Redbull. It's less convenient & that pisses me off.

I think we will have to agree to disagree or throw out some names. I used to frequent many bars from WSU area, Ham Town, Royal Oak, downtown, etc. etc. and never came across a smoke free BAR. I guess I really missed the smoke free ones.

[milesdriven]

I have a serious problem with ranch and bleu cheese salad dressings. Just a whiff will cause me to start gagging and become nauseous, and sometimes throw up in my my mouth. I don't sit near the salad bar. Maybe a waiter will walk past carrying a salad covered in one of these dastardly condiments from the abyss of hell, or even worse perhaps someone in my party will order their salad topped with one of these putrid dressings. I'm not lobbying for a ban on these dressings because we live in a [[supposedly) free country, and I realize that they bring satisfaction to my fellow Americans.

[Detroitnerd]

The one thing I take away from this thread is that people who favor the nonsmoking law are a bunch of whiny-ass bitches who want the world to legislate away the things they fear or hate.

[Chuck La Chez]

I'm curious as to how other places that have banned smoking have dealt with this issue. I know that California and New York City have done this and does anyone know of the effects on the local populace there? Has it hurt businesses there? Or has it helped in other ways? Is this ban also something we just might not be able to see the long term benefits just yet??

I don't know if there's a health benefit but I do know that bars are more pleasant here in Colorado, which has the ban. We go out more often as a result.

People just smoke outside. Places have designated areas and awnings, tents, etc. are provided.

The one thing I take away from this thread is that people who favor the nonsmoking law are a bunch of...

Your conclusion might be correct but the reality is that people rarely respect one another. Smokers, as a group, failed to mitigate the effects of their behavior on non-smokers by, for example, choosing to not smoke like chimneys while drinking. Bar owners failed to size ventilation systems to overcome peak hour indoor pollution.

It's impossible to get support from people who, though likely indifferent to the law, have been enduring some level of imposition from those who are faced with regulation.

I hear Limbaugh frequently asserting an identical opinion. I never quite grasp how he complains so bitterly about the consequence but never about the cause, which is the failure of smokers to behave like adults who are sharing an environment but treating it as if it belongs to them alone.



In regard to "businesses should have the right to choose": that's not a practical option for businesses. A leg on which success rests is an ability to avoid unnecessary conflict. Choosing to make your establishment a member of a minority is a recipe for disaster unless it's a niche business.

No sensible business or social politico will take a stand in his/her group against one of its members or potential members who smoke. It's political suicide/self-destructive. As a rule, regardless of how the other members feel about the offensive behavior, they'll turn against the member who's bringing attention to the aberrancy.

The "businesses should have the right to choose" argument is just silly.

[Detroitnerd]

Businesses still have the right to choose; it's just unlawful now. That's why this "law" is a sham.

Anyway, thanks for not being whiny about it.

[FoxyScholar10]

I have a serious problem with ranch and bleu cheese salad dressings. Just a whiff will cause me to start gagging and become nauseous, and sometimes throw up in my my mouth. I don't sit near the salad bar. Maybe a waiter will walk past carrying a salad covered in one of these dastardly condiments from the abyss of hell, or even worse perhaps someone in my party will order their salad topped with one of these putrid dressings. I'm not lobbying for a ban on these dressings because we live in a [[supposedly) free country, and I realize that they bring satisfaction to my fellow Americans.

Since you're not lobbying for a ban on those dressings, hopefully you're using those energies to find out why those smells are making you gag. That can't be healthy....

But to the larger point, 'cause we can play the "we live in a 'free' country" game all day long, depending on your vantage point, but one thing is clear: direct and indirect exposure to cigarette smoke is HAZARDOUS to the [[PUBLIC'S) health. There are good/healthy reasons for the smoking ban to be in place.

I can't stand the smell of salmon and folks [[incl. restaurants) have figured out how to cook it so it doesn't smell so I don't have to deal with it. **Yeah, I guess I just got it like that! **

I'm all for folks and restaurants doing what they want to do. But the environment/populace ought to make it SO UNCOMFORTABLE for them to do such things. It just shouldn't be so easy for such laws to be ignored. It just shouldn't be that easy. And it should be a crime to profit off of someone's addiction.

[1KielsonDrive]

The one thing I take away from this thread is that people who favor the nonsmoking law are a bunch of whiny-ass bitches who want the world to legislate away the things they fear or hate.

I like it: WAB. I'm a WAB and proud of it. Actually, I'll add WABMF. I'm a Whiny-Ass-Bitch-Mother- Fucker. I sure am glad we got that out of the way. I thought I was going to be eternally stuck with Fag and Art Fag.

[Detroitnerd]

I'm all for folks and restaurants doing what they want to do. But the environment/populace ought to make it SO UNCOMFORTABLE for them to do such things. It just shouldn't be so easy for such laws to be ignored. It just shouldn't be that easy. And it should be a crime to profit off of someone's addiction.

Puritanistic types aren't just whiny and self-righteous, but grim too.

"I want all hellions to quit puffing that hell fume in God's clean air." Carrie Nation on smokers

http://jameslogancourier.org/?itemid=1050

[1KielsonDrive]

banning smoking in bars is not killing the bar business - it's the economy - stupid!

It's the ecomony - stupid!

[Detroitnerd]

I like it: WAB. I'm a WAB and proud of it. Actually, I'll add WABMF. I'm a Whiny-Ass-Bitch-Mother- Fucker. I sure am glad we got that out of the way. I thought I was going to be eternally stuck with Fag and Art Fag.

Now you know that's a damn lie, 1KD. You've never been anything but kind and gentlemanly, supporting and abiding by the law with a patient and nonjudgmental kindness. I'd happily smoke outside your bar any [[warm) day.

[1KielsonDrive]

Businesses still have the right to choose; it's just unlawful now. That's why this "law" is a sham.

Anyway, thanks for not being whiny about it.

Sometimes if you aren't in agreement, the people you disagree with are just automatically Whiny-Ass-Bitches. Just the way life goes.

[FoxyScholar10]

Puritanistic types aren't just whiny and self-righteous, but grim too.

"I want all hellions to quit puffing that hell fume in God's clean air." Carrie Nation on smokers

http://jameslogancourier.org/?itemid=1050

Gosh, you got the [[skin) color wrong, along with the hair and the clothes.... A Puritan should be so lucky....

Whiners whine with no purpose. I use my energies in other ways.

Real story: my parents were smokers during most of my childhood [[so I didn't have a "choice"). I prayed that they would stop. They did. Cold turkey. Years before the nicotine patches and gum and whatnot. No whiny Puritan here, just a sincere, prayerful child who wanted my parents to live....

Oh my! Was that an emotional appeal? **clutches my conflict-free African diamonds**

[1KielsonDrive]

Now you know that's a damn lie, 1KD. You've never been anything but kind and gentlemanly, supporting and abiding by the law with a patient and nonjudgmental kindness. I'd happily smoke outside your bar any [[warm) day.

I've got another poster here at DY hoodwinked. Just don't smoke at my bar after I've had a few Jacks or Jamesons, when I become really kind and gentlemanly, patient and nonjudgemental. I may join you.

[Chuck La Chez]

Puritanistic types aren't just whiny and self-righteous, but grim too.

"I want all hellions to quit puffing that hell fume in God's clean air." Carrie Nation on smokers

+1.

Why is it that leftists are for individual freedom except if you're a business owner?

Why is it that right-wingers are for individual freedom except if you're homosexual?

[1KielsonDrive]

+1.

Why is it that leftists are for individual freedom except if you're a business owner?

Why is it that right-wingers are for individual freedom except if you're homosexual?

Beacuse we're all basically selfish. We want what we want. And that folks, is why this country is so ...........??????

[Chuck La Chez]

Beacuse we're all basically selfish.

We're all inherently selfish but I think it's a lack of education that permits us to believe that we're "free" when our puritanical fellows are so quick to impose on us.

[FoxyScholar10]

We're all inherently selfish but I think it's a lack of education that permits us to believe that we're "free" when our puritanical fellows are so quick to impose on us.

Or when "freedom" is subjective, based on someone else's oppression....

Whiners? Puritanical? Please. We're debating freedoms around a smoking ban....

Firm gave black kids free cigarettes, Mass. jury says
$71 million awarded to estate, son of woman who died of lung cancer


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40666163...th-addictions/

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...1f6682c318ba12

Mass. jury: Firm gave black kids free cigarettes


[[AP) – Dec 14, 2010


BOSTON [[AP) — A jury has ruled the Lorillard Tobacco Co. tried to entice black children to become smokers by handing out free cigarettes and has awarded $71 million in compensatory damages to the estate and son of a woman who died of lung cancer.


The Suffolk Superior Court jury announced its verdict Tuesday after hearing weeks of testimony.


Willie Evans alleged Lorillard introduced his mother, Marie Evans, to smoking as a child in the late 1950s by giving her free Newport cigarettes at the Orchard Park housing project in Boston, where she lived. He said his mother smoked for more than 40 years before dying of lung cancer at age 54.


The jury awarded Marie Evans' estate $50 million in compensatory damages and gave her son $21 million. A hearing on possible punitive damages is set for Thursday.


During the trial, a lawyer for Lorillard, which is based in Greensboro, N.C., and also makes Kent, True, Old Gold, Maverick and Max cigarettes, said that like many other cigarette companies it gave away free samples decades ago to adults in an attempt to get them to switch brands. But the company insisted it did not give cigarettes to children and called the allegation that it intentionally gave samples to black children "disturbing."


The company's lawyer also said Evans made the decision to start smoking and continued to smoke even after she suffered a heart attack in 1985 and her doctors repeatedly urged her to quit. A spokesman said the company would appeal the verdict.


"Lorillard respectfully disagrees with the jury's verdict and denies the plaintiff's claim that the company sampled to children or adults at Orchard Park in the early 1960s," company spokesman Gregg Perry said. "The plaintiff's 50-year-old memories were persuasively contradicted by testimony from several witnesses. The company will appeal and is confident it will prevail once the Massachusetts Court of Appeals reviews this case."


Willie Evans' attorney, Michael Weisman, declined to comment on the case until after Thursday's court hearing.


The lawsuit was believed to be the first in the country to accuse a cigarette-maker of targeting black children by giving away cigarettes in urban neighborhoods, said Edward A. Sweda, senior attorney for the Tobacco Products Liability Project at Boston's Northeastern University School of Law. He said the jury's decision is "quite significant and groundbreaking here in Massachusetts for a plaintiff in a tobacco case."


Sweda predicted it could lead to similar lawsuits around the country by people who also recall getting free cigarettes as children.


"We're hopeful that with the word of this verdict that it will not only help educate the public about this particular company and their history but may encourage other people who have gone through similar experiences in their lives to contact a lawyer," Sweda said.


Marie Evans' lawyers said she received her first free cigarettes at about age 9 and initially gave them to her older sisters or traded them for candy. They said she began smoking at age 13.


Jurors also heard from Evans herself through a videotaped deposition she gave to her lawyers in 2002, three weeks before she died. On the tape, Evans said the cigarette giveaways had a "large impact" on her.


"Because they were available ... I didn't worry about finding money to buy them," she said. "They seemed to be always available."


Evans said that over the years she made about 50 attempts to quit smoking but couldn't.


"I was addicted," she said. "I just couldn't stop."


Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[Chuck La Chez]

Or when "freedom" is subjective, based on someone else's oppression....

That sounds like the beginning of a social liberal double-speak definition of freedom: oppress one group to make another group free to use the property of others. Is that what you're getting at?

Whiners? Puritanical? Please. We're debating freedoms around a smoking ban...

It looks to me like freedoms related to use of private property were being discussed with an emphasis on the smoking ban.

[FoxyScholar10]

That sounds like the beginning of a social liberal double-speak definition of freedom: oppress one group to make another group free to use the property of others. Is that what you're getting at?



It looks to me like freedoms related to use of private property were being discussed with an emphasis on the smoking ban.

Le sigh....

Social liberal double-speak, huh? The ultimate okey-doke in action.... Freedom and oppression go together, right? Can't have one without the other. Just depends on which side you're on that works. There's nothing liberal about that.

If the private property you're talking about are those bars who are willingly, openly, blatantly ignoring the smoking ban, whatever.

Bottom line: I do not smoke. Never did. I do not want to be around smoking. So I do not patronize places where smoking is permitted. I'm not interested in "helping" smokers by the tired line of "freedoms". That's some wicked karma coming by profiting off of one's addiction.