Posted on 04/08/2006 5:39:01 AM PDT by SheLion
You bring up a great point! We sure have a lot worse to worry about then having highly paid anti-smoking forcing smoke bans on private businesses!
If smoking and second hand smoke was the worst thing we had going in America, we would be doing ok in my book.
Exactly.
Don't worry! Their stink rubbed off on Maine a few years ago as well. Maine wants smokers tax dollars to balance the damn budget, but they don't want to SEE smokers ANYWHERE! They make me sick.
Not just for me, but the hurt they put on the private business owners has been horrendous.
It was in Oregon.
Prior to the ban it was my opinion and most of our members in the C of C that is should be the owners decision on allowing or not allowing smoking in their business. Likewise, it should be the customers decision whether or not to frequent that business. That still is my opinion.
However the feared drop in revenue after the banned passed did not happen. The smoking ban did allow some exceptions, bars and special closed off smoking rooms, so perhaps that helped in preventing drops in income.
Interesting that now after 5 or 6 years most of the owners that fought this change now say it was a positive occurrence.
Oh sure, Diana. They didn't ban smoking in the halls of Congress (Washington DC) either. It's just the "little people" that are made to suffer. The big wigs just carry on with their cushy lives and to hell with the rest of us.
And yes! It IS infuriating!!!!
I can see your point. Up here in Khanuckistan we have seen our fair share of American do gooders come up here and impose their brand of liberalism. The country in unrecognizable!
I'm half-tempted to show up there at lunch one day in my overalls and chicken-chit covered boots and demand a Swisher Sweet and a Cosmopolitan! I'll make it very clear that since I can't smoke and drink in my OWN neighborhood bar, I'll just have to start using theirs. :)
(Like I could afford to even walk in the door, LOL!)
TriMet to enforce smoking ban
December 30, 2005
TriMet on Jan. 1 will begin enforcing the ban of smoking at all bus shelters and most MAX stations.
The ban has been effect since late September, but TriMet decided not to enforce it until no-smoking signs were installed at the 1,090 bus shelters and the MAX stations where smoking is prohibited.
MAX stations that share its platform with a city sidewalk are not affected by the no-smoking policy.
The no-smoking rule is enforceable by a warning, $94 fine and/or exclusion.
Here's one more:
 Another Ban Failed: OR Anti-tobacco bills going up in smokeAnti-tobacco bills going up in smoke |
||
| Posted by samantha on Monday, July 18 @ 08:36:47 EDT ( Read More... | 4725 bytes more | Another Ban Failed | Score: 3) |
The ban that I fought against went up for a vote and passed by a 65/35 majority. And that was in what is considered conservitive voting rural Oregon. Bush got almost 70% of the votes here.
The ban that I fought against went up for a vote and passed by a 65/35 majority. And that was in what is considered conservitive voting rural Oregon. Bush got almost 70% of the votes here.
But you have to remember, (even though smokers still outnumber the NRA), there are only 25-30% of the people who smoke in a state. So, unless the non-smokers realize the hurt they will put upon private businesses with a forced smoking ban, the private business owner will lose every time along with the smokers.
The highly paid anti-smokers have spewed so many lies out there and the general public believes them. Fox might say they are fair and balanced, but I have yet to see them favor OUR side of this story and the actual truth.
"Interesting that now after 5 or 6 years most of the owners that fought this change now say it was a positive occurrence."
That is Not the point. A Private Individual opens a business. It is HIS decision not the governments to decide if he will allow his customers smoke or not. He puts a Big Sign in the window Smoking Allowed or No Smoking Allowed
The customers decide. And that is Suppoosed to be the American Way.
The government can mandate the sign but that is as far as I am willing to let them go.
I helped unsuccessfully fight smoking restrictions in my area and still think it should be the owners and customers that decide the smoking issues.
I'm just saying that in my experience the feared drop in revenues and business closures just did not happen.
I'm no longer in that area but I've heard that the next thing to come up for a vote is the banning of smoking in bars (allowed now). Even though I'm a non-smoker for over 25 years If I still lived there I again would help fight that ban.
To an extent, all are.
The ABC and health departments have enough laws, pertaining to the operations of these establishments, as to make it impossible not to be in violation at any given moment.
Ask your local resaurant owner when was the last time he/she disasembled and sanitized the ice machine.
I apoligiize I missed #24
I am also worried about the tax situation when the percentage of people not paying federal taxes outnumber the people paying federal taxes. Kind of like non-smokers outnumbering smokers. Tax cuts and tax reform like the flat tax will never happen. And unlike
sarcasm on...
"Undocumented Workers" sarcasm off...
I wont have another country to go back to
A smoking ban was passed in Arkansas.
The ABC and health departments have enough laws, pertaining to the operations of these establishments, as to make it impossible not to be in violation at any given moment.
Ask your local resaurant owner when was the last time he/she disasembled and sanitized the ice machine.
When you own a business, the health dept has the right to inspect your kitchen. They do not have the right to tell you what you can and can not allow on your property.
For example, say you own a restaurant... you don't have to let anyone in that you don't want to.
You may also put up a sign saying "no smoking" or "no children" or"no cell phones" or "no fat people" or "no green coats."
You don't HAVE to let anyone on your property that you don't want to.
Would the health dept say you can not let anyone in wearing the green gang color in your area? No... because Antis haven't found a way to get money from Big Gang yet. So they fall back on tobacco where there is money.
In the future when the Antis go after booze... will the health dept say no booze because that part of the population is no longer human, and the Antis made drinkers OK to kick around?
How about fat people? That's not healthy, so shouldn't the health dept say no fat people are allowed in your restaurant?
The health dept using ANYTHING legal as a means to single out any group of people is wrong. Their power has to do with if you have rats, unclean conditions, out of date food, etc... NOT to tell the private property owner what to do.
You can say it is abuse of power if a health dept goes beyond what is on his safety checklist and tells the owner to do anything.
Otherwise.... if I'm a health dept worker and I hate cell phones... I could close you down if you don't agree to keep all cell phones off YOUR property.
The person paying the taxes on the property should set the rules on the property. If the parcel of land is owned by the Federal Gvt. like the court house... they set the rules. If you own your own bar, you set the rules.
A simple sign on the door works. The public will go to and spend money where they want.
Public property: That which is purchased and maintained by tax dollars for the benefit of all people.
Private property: That which is not purchased or maintained by tax dollars and is for the benefit of the property owner.
To be honest, an increase or decrease in revenue is irrelevant to the argument.
This is a simple business decision and does not require the interference of government.
A smoking ban was passed in Arkansas.
This is what I found about Arkansas so far. You can click on link and go and read more.
Along with some bars, the bill exempts tobacco shops, hotels, nursing homes and home-based businesses with fewer than three employees.
Ark. House approves amended version of smoking ban proposal
April 6, 2006
ANDREW DeMILLO
LITTLE ROCK - A House panel on Thursday unanimously endorsed an amended version of a bill that would ban workplace smoking but would now exempt small hotels and motels from the prohibition.
The House Rules Committee recommended passage of the ban with the amendment that was approved by House members Thursday morning.
Rep. Sid Rosenbaum, R-Little Rock, a sponsor of the ban, said he agreed with the amendment though he earlier had called it a threat to the bill's passage.
"This is a change we can live with," Rosenbaum said. "After looking at it we saw this was something that would help smaller businesses."
Rosenbaum said he was hopeful the House could suspend rules and vote on the revised ban Thursday afternoon.
The Senate would also have to approve the amended version for final approval.
Sen. Paul Miller, D-Melbourne, a Senate sponsor of the ban, told the panel he was concerned that any further amendment could jeopardize the bill during the special session.
"If we delay this one day, it's dead in the water," Miller told the committee.
The committee also recommended passage of a bill to ban smoking in cars while a child is in a car seat. Rep. Bob Mathis, D-Hot Springs, who introduced the proposal, said the prohibition would help protect children from second-hand smoke.
"This could be a legacy for us to help some kids," Mathis said. "Maybe we can do something to help our children."
The committee had been scheduled to discuss a proposal to ban the sale, manufacture and transport of tobacco in the state. Rep. Randy Rankin, D-Eudora, who introduced the bill on Wednesday, asked that the committee not consider the proposal.
Rankin said he filed the bill as a statement in protest of the smoking ban.
"If cigarettes are causing such a problem, then let's ban cigarettes," he said.
The ban on workplace smoking would not affect some bars, and the bill exempts tobacco shops, hotels, nursing homes and home-based businesses with fewer than three employees.
Violators would be fined $100-$500, under the bill.
The ban has won plenty of support in both houses, but it is opposed by the Arkansas Hospitality Association and some small businesses
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.