Gee isn't that wonderful........ /s
Proponents also say cigarette butts and filters damage the environment. During a three hour cleanup of city beaches last month, they say they found some 35,000 butts in the sand.
-
yick. but that’s what you get with a public beach. it turns into a dumping ground
I’m convinced that this is all about the smell of the tobacco smoke that people object. You get more toxic effects from chemicals and cooking byproducts inside people’s homes.
Smokers used to be citizens too.
Not that it really matters much, but I'd love to know how they came up with that number. Did they sort the butts from the other trash? If so, why? Or is that just another PDOOMA number?
Where have we heard that before?????????????? Nanny State Ping.............
Ping.
Yes Daniel, hide reality from children. Feel guilt, go ahead. Do it for the children.
Feel better now, Daniel?
Unbelievable. Not the BS that second hand smoke harms anyone, especially outdoors, but unbelievable that such a ridiculous “law” would be passed.
Not even Canada is that bad.
Oh well, it’s almost dark, I think I’ll go burn some old tires...
Because it may effect the children, I want fat people wearing bikinis banned from beaches too.
But taking your kids to watch a gay pride parade is perfectly fine, eh Daniel?
“Proponents of the ban say it’s a matter of public health.”
I’d rather breath second hand cigarette smoke than deisel bus exhaust.
A smoker told me that he would get mad when someone told him he could not smoke outside. I told him it was already here, and he didn’t believe me. LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
These people literally are NAZI’s. What else can you call them? The pathetic and sad thing is that they don’t care.
What a joke!
There’s a restaurant in Chicago that has taken a bold stand, and I fully support their position. I hope to see it spread nationwide.
Dan McCauley, the owner of a local café, A Taste of Heaven, caught two kids literally climbing the restaurant walls while the parents just sat nearby doing nothing. He told the family that they were no longer welcome to dine there. The next morning, he posted a sign in the window reading “Children of all ages have to behave and use their indoor voices when coming to A Taste of Heaven."
The sign has provoked many reactions, both for and against his position. Some parental groups have even called for a boycott of the café.
As I stated, I support Mr. McCauley’s decision, but I don’t think it’s enough. Consider:
- Children are noisy. I hate going into a restaurant and being subjected to their shrieks and cries. There is also some real concern that extended exposure to the high-pitched decibels can lead to serious health risks like tinnitus.
- Children are messy. The sight of their food-covered faces puts me off of my meal.
- One of my friends was hit by a fork thrown by a child, and had to have stitches. Clearly, children pose a physical danger to other patrons.
- As a parent, it shows a frightful lack of personal responsibility to allow your children to negatively impact others’ dining experience.
- Children’s Advocacy Groups are merely pushing their own opinions on the rest of us, without considering the societal impact of their recommendations.
It’s obvious, isn’t it? We should ban children completely from restaurants. I imagine that we could even expand the ban to all public places. How much damage is caused by children in grocery stores and malls? Anything that is broken is lost revenue, and employees have to spend more time picking up after the kids, which impacts efficiency. All of this is passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
Don’t even get me started on kids in cars. They are a dangerous distraction to the drivers. Their demands for attention, spills, and yelling can lead to accidents, driving up both insurance and health care costs. We should no longer allow children in cars.
Places where children gather together in large groups, such as day care centers, schools, summer camps, and parks, should be closed down immediately. They are nothing more than disease reservoirs. If one child gets sick, they all get sick, and spread the illness to their families, who pass it on to coworkers, etc. The children are creating hazardous conditions for any patron, but especially for the employees, who have a higher exposure rate.
Children are expensive, too. In fact, the top three governmental expenditures every year are: #1, Social Security; #2, various family support programs such as Welfare; and #3, the Department of Education. By way of comparison, the Department of Defense ranks #4 in spending. Obviously, families with children cost society more money than those without. We should eliminate the tax credits for kids, and instead impose a tax penalty, to recoup some of that money. It’s only fair to ask them to shoulder the burden of paying for the system they are driving to the breaking point. In addition, individual families should be sued, with the money going to bolster Planned Parenthood programs to help people break the habit of live births.
Obviously, some families will insist that they have the right to take their kids with them anywhere they go. They’ll whine about “free markets”, “property-owner rights” and “individual choice.” It is equally obvious that these people are selfish, and have no concern for others. Therefore, I will be petitioning my city council to turn these suggestions into laws.
After all: It’s because of the children.
Smoke ban on menu for city - Chicago
28 August 2002 - Chicago Tribune
The City Council's anti-smoking crusaders are teaming up again to try to ban patrons from lighting up in Chicago restaurants.
Following a similar proposal that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg introduced earlier this month, Ald. Ed Smith (28th) and Ald. Edward Burke (14th) said they plan to reintroduce a measure banning smoking in restaurants at next week's City Council meeting.
Chicago's proposal, unlike New York's, does not include bars.
Two years ago, Burke proposed a measure to ban smoking within 5 feet of the entrances to public buildings and in restaurants with more than 35 seats.
"Now that New York City has gone to a much more strict policy with respect to smoking in public places, Chicago should follow suit," said Burke, whose father died of lung cancer. "Had I been successful several years ago we would have been on record before New York City as banning smoking in public places."
Smith, who has lost three siblings to lung cancer, agreed that the timing was right for imposing such a drastic measure. He successfully pushed through an ordinance banning smoking in the council chambers' anteroom two years ago.
"Now let's face it--smoking is just bad. Just because you're in a restaurant and you're sitting on that side of the aisle where you're not smoking and somebody is over here smoking, you're not out of the line of fire," he said. "When you walk out you can still smell smoke in your clothes, which means that you're breathing it."
Opponents, however, want the aldermen to butt out.
Ald. William Beavers (7th), a steadfast opponent of previous anti-smoking measures, said the financial impact on restaurants would have to be carefully studied before considering the ordinance.
Does that mean he would, on some level, support it?
He took a long drag from a Pall Mall while sitting in his office Tuesday afternoon and exhaled slowly.
"No."
Colleen McShane, president of the Illinois Restaurant Association, said her organization also would fight the proposal.
"We're opposed to any type of governmental intervention, especially a mandate on smoking," McShane said. "This is about giving the customer the freedom to choose."
Most restaurants already have incorporated non-smoking areas into their establishments, sometimes at considerable cost for upgraded ventilation systems to accommodate all customers, McShane said.
Ron Burke, spokesman for the American Lung Association in Chicago, said the organization supports an overall smoking ban in restaurants to protect employees as well as customers. He said that being exposed to eight hours of secondhand smoke is equivalent to "smoking a pack or two of cigarettes, involuntarily."
"All reputable studies have shown that smoke bans do not hurt businesses," Burke said. (This is a bold faced lie).
Similar bans exist in Los Angeles and other cities.
Burke acknowledged that chances of passage for his latest anti-smoking initiative might be slim in Chicago.
"These kinds of laws don't come about unless there is a ground swell of support in the public," he said.
The lamentations, wailing and gnashing of teeth here is music unto my ears. There are so many rude smokers that this is just payback for their uncivilized behavior.
Case in point. I was at a PGA golf tournament about a month ago. The place was packed... 4-to-ten people deep, all around the 1st tee box. Most people would watch the pro’s tee off and then if it was someone they wanted to follow, walk along the fairways with them to the first hole and so on. Or they would stay put. 300-500 people perhaps... all pressed against the ropes, shoulder to shoulder, enjoying the art of the golfers. Across the tee box, I see a thick gray-blue cloud of smoke, as some jerk lights up a cigar. But it really wasn’t the smoke I saw first, it was the movement of the crowd as they shuffled out of the cloud and muttered to him to put it out, or move away, or whatever, I couldn’t hear. But apparently he ignored them ‘cause next I saw a golf marshal, really a volunteer I’m guessing, but he had a uniform on, say something to the guy. Stoggie smoker didn’t put the cigar out, he just moved well back and then followed the next pro up the fairway.
I enjoy the sweet, pungent smell of a good cigar, so it wasn’t the smell and I was too far away to smell it anyway...It was the rude, uncouth behavior of someone to light up in a crowd, outdoors or not.
So to the rude smokers out there. Payback is a b!tch.