Thanks, Flurry. But you will have to dial 1-800-Heaven.........he passed away this past January.
Posted on 05/01/2003 4:47:09 AM PDT by SheLion
Some lawmakers, including Gov. John Baldacci, are posed to outlaw smoking in bars. If they do, Maine could be the fifth state to ban smoking in bars.
Earlier this month the Legislative Health and Human Services Committee voted 12-1 to ban smoking in bars effective Jan. 1. The only exception would be off-track betting parlors.
The same committee also voted 10-3 to ban smoking at bingo and Beano games.
The committee’s recommendations will be considered by the full House and Senate when the bills reach the floors for votes. That is expected in the next few weeks.
“If the bill reaches his desk, he more than likely will sign it,” Lee Umphrey, Baldacci’s director of communications said Monday. Having smoking banned in bars “clearly reflects his interest in a healthy Maine,” Umphrey said.
Sponsor Sen. Karl Turner, R-Cumberland, said he wants to protect bartenders, waiters and waitresses and others from secondhand smoke. Given the fact that secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as a Class A carcinogen, and is a known cause of lung cancer, asthma and other diseases, Turner asked how can the state allow a workplace to exist where workers are exposed? “The evidence is overwhelming,” he said.
There are excellent paying jobs in bars and taverns, but people should not be subjected to something that could hurt them to earn a living, Turner said. Nor should any employer or manager feel comfortable exposing workers “to something that causes disease.”
Others on the committee, including Rep. Margaret Craven, D-Lewiston, and Rep. Will Walcott, D-Lewiston, agreed.
“I’m concerned about workers, people in there who don’t smoke,” Walcott said. Many bars are small, and the second-hand smoke is concentrated. “Secondhand smoke is a killer.” Banning smoking in bars “is the right thing to do,” Walcott said. Less secondhand smoke would help lower health care costs in Maine, he said.
While some say banning smoking would hurt bars by keeping smoking patrons away, Craven said the Ramada Inn in Lewiston is smoke free. “They lost a few patrons in the beginning, but new patrons have come in,” she said.
That was confirmed Monday by Gary Adams, owner of the Ramada Inn. His lounge has been smoke-free for two years, and his entire complex became smoke-free recently with no guestrooms designated for smokers. “We did it on customer request,” Adams said. Complaints about secondhand smoke have become more prevalent, he said. Banning smoking in the bar did mean that some regulars stopped coming, but others who stayed away because of the smoke have become new patrons, Adams said. “And it will be easier when it is universal, versus selective” lounges that have gone smoke free, he said.
Other establishments, such as J’s Oyster in Portland, have told lawmakers they’re opposed to the bill and worry that the bill could put them and other bars out of business.
Craven, Walcott and Turner predicted the bill will pass and be signed by the governor. Dr. Dora Mills, director of the Bureau of Health, testified for the bill, an indication the governor favors the bill.
But Rep. Edward Dugay, D-Cherryfield, the lone committee vote against, said Monday he “doesn’t buy” the argument that the bill is all about protecting bar workers.
Bartenders and wait staff don’t have to work in bars and lounges, they can work someplace else, Dugay said. He’s spoken to several bars in his district where the owners have spent thousands on equipment to have smoke removed. It would be unfair to them to change the rules, Dugay said. Instead of a statewide smoking ban in bars, he’d favor more regional or municipal bans.
Dugay predicted the bill will not pass. “I know the vote is 12-1 in committee, but I think I can turn this around when it gets to the floor,” he said.
bwashuk@sunjournal.com
The rights are property rights, not smokers rights. The owner of the property gets to define what happens there.
Smoking affects my health, so I should just not go out to eat?
Go to a place where the property owner doesn't allow smoking. Or get take out, or make other arrangements. You do not have a "right" to dictate what an owner may do on his own property. His property rights trump your desires and preferences on his property.
That doesn't make much sense.
Now maybe it does.
You're my kind of people. And if you don't like the smell of my cigarette, guess what? I won't smoke one in your presence.
Heh. Oh, I've done my best to mobilize and fight it, but I have fanatical Health Nazi friends. My roommate's girlfriend is a fanatical no-NOTHING -- no drinking, no smoking (of anything), no...nothing. Granola-munching health-nut tree-hugging hippie. Drives me nuts, because whenever she comes over, all the cigarettes and beer cans and, ahem, the occasional rolling paper, get moved into *my* room -- consequently, the girl thinks I'm the AntiChrist. I don't really know why anyone would want to date someone who they have to change their persona for, especially this particular frump, but...she seems to make him happy, so I shut up about it and she complains about the "stench of smoke" bitterly all the time (hey, *I* pay the rent...grrr...is what I *want* to say -- this girl is still in college...but I bite my tongue...).
If the Health and Safety Nazis achieve their ultimate goal, it basically will be Prohibition. And I hear the next step really is Naziesque, that is, I have heard rumblings of not being able to smoke if you are in a building with children, and using the children to rat out the smokers (Safety Nazi Youth). In California, when I left, it had gotten so bad that you weren't allowed to smoke until you moved a certain distance away from the SIDEWALK. But as an earlier poster pointed out, it *was* like Prohibition. There were some bars that you "knew" you could smoke at. Other bars found creative ways to somehow get around it -- notably, cigar bars, because, of course, cigar clubs weren't totally banned, as politicians tend to like their cigars. Mostly you'd just cup a cigarette and smoke it until either a) Someone told you to put it out or b) The bartender came up to you with an ashtray and said, "Don't worry -- can you read Korean? -- No? -- Good, see that sign in Korean? -- That's our 'No Smoking' sign." (true story). The other thing that tends to happen is what is happening right now in NYC -- marathon laps outside, and a palpable sort of "tension" inside -- people with slightly shaky hands and a desperate look on their faces. Health Nazis push even harder on this, it'll eventually end up like MJ, decriminalized, with penalties targeting the supply in a demand-driven market. If they wanted to get "serious" about the WoD, hrm, try making possession of any amount of MJ punishable by death -- that would make people think twice -- point is we're simply not serious about it, because we view the user as a "victim" in our victim-culture, and give him a pass. Not that I am advocating the WoD; I think it's a tremendous waste of time and money, at least in the case of MJ. Harder drugs -- keep them illegal. Hey, you can get medicinal "heroin" pretty darned easily. Twist your ankle, doc hands you a painkiller -- which all break down into morphine in the bloodstream, if they're of the narcotic variety. So cigarettes would simply be taken over by the black market completely, and no one would ever want to fry someone in the chair for smoking a butt, so...bah. Can't write much more about this. It just makes me angry. Soooo angry. As I said, I'm limited to where I smoke in my *own house* because of my *roommate's gf* -- and my *roommate* smokes. They're both, of course, liberal Democrats; God forbid I should try to make them acqueisce to any of my requests, for They Know What's Good For Me and Vee Haff Vays Uff Making You Stub Out That Butt.
You know what? I'm so ticked about this that I'm going into the smoke-forbidden "common room" and firing one up right now. Damn the consequences. ;-) Granola girl can suffer. There's nothing in my lease that says I can't smoke. GRRRRRRR...I mean, the ultimate hypocrisy is in the bars. I've seen so, so, SO many people ruin their lives with alcohol. Now that's fine: I have no problem with that; that's their choice, I'm not going to interfere. However, I've never seen anyone smoke a pack of Marlboros and then wrap their tree around a car because of their nicostat level, or get into a barfight over the pronunciation of a word. By the way, as far as us smokers "costing the health care system more", that's a load of hooey -- we don't cost the health care system more, we DIE EARLY -- it's the people who live to be 112 and just hang on and on that drive up health care costs. Therefore I suggest MANDATORY smoking.
Okay, gotta go remember to stick up the common room before I lose the thought.
By the way, I understood your original post about Alabama, for what it's worth, so don't worry. ;-)
Everything can be repealed. But not until politicians see consequences for it. So we have to start mobilizng and tossing these Health Nazis outta there on these specific issues. That will put the fear of God into them. Once they know they can lose an election on that issue alone, they WILL think twice about passing a ban.
Speaking of God, all I have to say is, in my Heaven, they still have the cigarette vending machines. On every corner. :-)
Hmm. I think it would downright American to pass a law that makes carping elitist statements punishable by death. Anybody with me? Yeah, then that'll be the law...and we can "smoke" you. :-) Sheesh, that is the DUMBEST argument I have ever heard. We are DEBATING the merit of the law, not whether or not the law is passing. Prohibition was repealed. Hopefully, so will these fanatical smoking bans.
You sound like an ex-smoker. I bet you find Bloomberg "strong and assertive". ;-)
Unless carefully regulated, prostitution is a known cause of communicable disease. That puts it into the same category as sanitary (no rats or roaches in the kitchen) or fire (not too many people in one small location) codes. It is something the general public can not see or know.
It is very easy for the general public to be aware that tobacco smoking is permitted in a specific location. A simple sign on the door is all that is necesary.
I'm glad to know you oppose these laws regarding activities that are apparent to even the most casual observer.
I will continue to oppose these laws because it is downright American to do so.
Thanks, Flurry. But you will have to dial 1-800-Heaven.........he passed away this past January.
And so do I. I hope we can wipe the slate and start over?
YOU shut up! And just where did I make a wrong assumption? Everything I post I do not dream up! It's all in print, bub.
There isn't many places I CAN go to smoke and spend my money, have a great meal and my coffee! And I do NOT want to lose the three places I have up here.
YOU shut up! Your ignorant.
Would you like to be added to the Free Republic Smokers' Lounge ping list?
Free Republic Smokers' Lounge
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.