Skip to comments.
City Passes Smoke Ban (Scranton, PA)
The Scranton Times-Tribune ^
| 12-08-06
| Stacy Brown
Posted on 12/08/2006 9:03:48 AM PST by Namyak
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
I can tell you right now, this ban will cause the death of at least half the bars in Scranton, especially since no neighboring municipalities are even considering such a move. For a city where a conservative estimate of 30% of the bar-going crowd smokes, this is monumental stupidity.
1
posted on
12/08/2006 9:03:51 AM PST
by
Namyak
To: SheLion
2
posted on
12/08/2006 9:05:57 AM PST
by
xowboy
To: Namyak
My city in Missouri just voted down a smoking ban ordinance.
I have to give credit to the council for letting THE PEOPLE decide...not imposing it unilaterally.
3
posted on
12/08/2006 9:06:39 AM PST
by
demsux
To: Namyak
Tobacco Prohibition. We'll be able to tell our grandchildren about it.
4
posted on
12/08/2006 9:07:14 AM PST
by
poobear
(Political Left, continually accusing their foes of what THEY themselves do every day.)
To: SheLion; Gabz
To: Namyak
Why is it that people get to vote on smoking bans but not on such things as speed limits?
To: Namyak
Does the no smoking ban include a ban on receiving tobacco tax dollars in their coffers. If so then, I am all for the ban. (except where I live.) Oh yes please encourage them to ban demoncrapts too.
7
posted on
12/08/2006 9:14:03 AM PST
by
DaBearOne
(she is always with us)
To: Gabz
8
posted on
12/08/2006 9:16:39 AM PST
by
Gondring
(I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
To: elkfersupper
Well in this case, we didn't get to vote on it. City Council basically rammed it down our throats, at the behest of a group of highschoolers and out-of-town doctors.
9
posted on
12/08/2006 9:18:14 AM PST
by
Namyak
(Oderint dum metuant)
To: DaBearOne
I'm a Philly smoker and the new ban just went into effect here in September. It's funny ( a sad kind of funny) watching the security guards at Eagles games chasing the drunk smokers all over the stadium....an open-air facility, no less. Don't know how it's affecting the restaurants and pubs, I'm no longer a part of that scene, but I haven't seen many smokers crowding the sidewalks outside of those places.
We do have a councilman who's trying to revise the ban, giving business owners a bigger say in what goes on int their establishments....
10
posted on
12/08/2006 9:20:08 AM PST
by
Sterm26
(Death before Dhimmitude!)
To: Namyak
Next they will ban gasoline engines, then ban walking, then ban eating to fight fat. Maybe they'll ban voting so they save time and conflict.
11
posted on
12/08/2006 9:23:10 AM PST
by
Ron2
To: Namyak; Just another Joe; CSM; lockjaw02; Publius6961; elkfersupper; nopardons; metesky; Mears; ...
Nanny State Ping..............
12
posted on
12/08/2006 9:27:54 AM PST
by
Gabz
(If we weren't crazy, we'd just all go insane.)
To: Namyak
I wonder how Scranton feels about 30,000 lbs of bananas...
13
posted on
12/08/2006 9:34:18 AM PST
by
Jonah Hex
("How'd you get that scar, mister?" "Nicked myself shaving.")
To: Namyak
Smoking has been banned in all restaurants here in California for some time. Not long after enacting that law, the state banned smoking in all bars, whether they serve food (usually snacks) or not. The law actually was written to protect the employees of the bar or restaurant, not the customers. Some small establishments have found a loophole in that if the owner has no employees, smoking can proceed. The general thought was that the bars would suffer but it has not been the case. They seem to thrive just as they did pre-ban.
14
posted on
12/08/2006 9:38:16 AM PST
by
seedman81
(Better to die in Christ and gain life than to live my way and lose in the end)
To: DaBearOne
"a ban on receiving tobacco tax dollars in their coffers."
________________________________________
And they call us addicts.
15
posted on
12/08/2006 9:43:22 AM PST
by
xowboy
To: Jonah Hex
The policymakers want us to believe that they are doing this for health reasons - but they cant'show/prove why second hand smoke is only harmful in privately-owned bars/businesses but NOT in casinos. Notice how these "bans" are popping up all over PA - now that the Casinos are coming to town. How can a small family owned bar compete with the casino down the stree that allows smoking AND free drinks? Stamping on the little guy's right to pursuit of happiness as far as I'm concerned. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! Lobbyists, unions and big businesses run this country - not the people.
16
posted on
12/08/2006 9:46:18 AM PST
by
GYPSY286
(Politicians must USE their heads or Americans will LOSE their heads.)
To: seedman81
That's what Scranton's reasoning is, it is to protect the employees from exposure to SHS, the most toxic substance in existence. SHS is so toxic, there is no safe exposure level, at least according to the Surgeon General.
Philosophical questions aside regarding the employee's choice to work in that environment, if SHS is such a harmful substance, why don't they apply OSHA regulations regarding exposure to harmful chemicals in the environment to bars and restaurants? Take the most harmful substance found in tobacco smoke, and make that the basement. Exposure past that certain threshold for a 8-hour work shift is a violation. The reason they won't do this is because OSHA already has safe exposure levels for all the chemicals in tobacco smoke, and you would never reach those in a bar or restaurant environment. This has nothing to do with "saving" the employees from their decision to work at a bar, and everything to with control over our lives.
17
posted on
12/08/2006 9:54:57 AM PST
by
Namyak
(Oderint dum metuant)
To: Gabz
I have an idea - let's adopt the same clean air standards for all emissions. Ban cars, fire, breathing, farting...
18
posted on
12/08/2006 9:55:30 AM PST
by
patton
(Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
To: seedman81
The general thought was that the bars would suffer but it has not been the case. They seem to thrive just as they did pre-ban.BS alert
Source please
19
posted on
12/08/2006 10:02:49 AM PST
by
demsux
To: demsux
The source would be...me. That was just my observation in my neck of the Greater Central Valley. It seems to me that people are still frequenting the local drinking establishments regardless of the ban as smoking is allowed outside the bar (open air). Have you found it to be different where you are?
20
posted on
12/08/2006 10:08:24 AM PST
by
seedman81
(Better to die in Christ and gain life than to live my way and lose in the end)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson