Complete Cigar Ban!

While it seems that most posters on this forum are American, I thought I'd share a recent piece of legislation in Newfoundland, Canada. As of July 1st, 2005, ALL public places are completely smoke free. This includes outdoor patio's, and other completely outdoor establishments. I am a law student and as per my interpretation of the legislation it may even include Golf Courses!!! (Oh the humanity! :smiley19: ) Although such a piece of legislatin is unlikely to be saved by the federal charter, I think it is going too far. Does anyone have any opinion on this complete smoking ban? (I am expecially interested in the opinion of the American's on here.) (Oh yeah, and any cigar bars are officially closed!)

Smoking bans in general are wrong at multiple levels. I get furious when I hear about them and wring my hands about the wholesale health-and-wellness police state that big brother is clobbering us over the head with. From what I hear, there are places in the US where even outdoor smoking is being banned. It's enough to make me weep for my country, not just as a smoker, but as someone who values freedom.

I always used to think that the nanny-staters would pistol-whip the smokers into submission and then move onto food and beverages, slapping the double cheeseburgers out of the mouths of fast-food patrons and sin taxing alcohol and coffee right into the black market. It was at this point I thought the people would say enough is enough and revolt...when it was more than just us smokers getting slapped around. Now I doubt the tide will ever change. The more hyperbolic rhetoric the public has thrust upon them about the need for Oreo prohibitions and "double latte sin taxes", the more they accept the idea that "something HAS TO BE DONE!!!!!" Public opinion polls are already showing a major shift in favor of "Twinkie taxes" and other anti-obesity measures. I suspect that with a couple more years of breathless warnings about obesity epidemics, obese people will be joining us smokers as the pariahs of society.

Sorry for the rant, but this kind of news really makes my blood boil..lol.

Oh the big time nanny states like Connecticut where I live are on the leading edge of this bullshit. They banned smoking in bars ans restaurants two years ago.

This year, the legislature tried to pass a "School Nutrition" bill where they would among other things, remove all vending machines from all schools. The Republicans voted against it and dubbed it the "No Child Left With a Big Behind" bill. The Democrats passed it and fortunately the Republican Governor vetoed it.

I thought things were bad here in the states until I saw Island Epicurean's post about Canada. :smiley3:

Just another reason why I don't think very highly of the socialist country of Canada :smiley21:

I like Amanda, use to think that people would stand up and put a stop to this freedom-limiting madness, but when a notoriously conservative state like TX is embracing smoking bans (Austin) I tend to lose hope. More and more it seems that the outcries of smokers are overlooked.

The attack on obese people has gotten to me as well. If the attack on them by the private sector (double ticketing on airplanes etc..) wasn't enough, now they are being attacked by BS legislation! It seems even with a "conservative" legislature and president the liberals are still imposing their whacked out views on our society. And now the Canadians are heading the same route.

Very sorry to hear it Island, hopefully one day all this crap legislation will be overturned. If not, I see a whole new prohibition era starting complete with speakeasies (I hear it's already started in CA).

Personal freedoms are under assault from both the red and the blue. There are fewer and fewer good guys in this battle. I agree with grand cru that a new prohibition era is on the way throughout the Western world as the nanny state flexes its muscle. There's already a significant black market for cigarettes in the U.S. with tax rates varying so greatly from state to state. From what I understand, terrorist cells have discovered the black market sales of cigarettes across state lines are a fast and relatively benign way to raise alot of cash to finance terrorist operations. Tragically, the only thing that may make the nanny-staters realize the error of their ways is a major terrorist attack definitively financed through the black market sale of cigarettes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grand cru no 2

when a notoriously conservative state like TX is embracing smoking bans (Austin) I tend to lose hope.

---

austin is one of those little bastions of liberalism in texas... kinda like the montrose area of houston... they dont represent the whole state...

now when lubbock starts coming down on the smokers... then i'll really start to worry...

I think banning smoking in open-air places is stupid. However, I can understand enclosed public places but I think that the word "public" has been broadened too much. To me, public suggests state owned or operated

If a proprietor of a privately owned restaurant, bar or store decides that he/she wishes to allow smoking in his/her establishment that is a risk that he/she has the right to take. Some patrons may decide not to go there because of smoking while others it won't bother.

But if it is a public place where one must go with no option, fine, ban smoking there. I have no problem with that. It's fair.

I could take this a step further. I'd like to see the wearing of excessive amount of cologne and perfume banned in all places. Few things piss me off as much as some dork or dorkette occupying my personal space after they have bathed in cologne. It's absolutely repellant and it makes me want to vomit! :smiley11: Also, the Dunkin' Donuts down the street from my work has a woman behind the counter who wears a lot of cologne and when I get my coffee from her I can smell it on my styro coffee cup quite strongly for a long time. So every time I take a sip of coffee I have to smell her cologne!!! :smiley7: That does it! Where's the phone number for Senator Kennedy's office??!!! I'm taking action! I'LL SUE!!!!!!! :smiley4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMAB

I think banning smoking in open-air places is stupid. However, I can understand enclosed public places but I think that the word "public" has been broadened too much. To me, public suggests state owned or operated

If a proprietor of a privately owned restaurant, bar or store decides that he/she wishes to allow smoking in his/her establishment that is a risk that he/she has the right to take. Some patrons may decide not to go there because of smoking while others it won't bother.

But if it is a public place where one must go with no option, fine, ban smoking there. I have no problem with that. It's fair.

I could take this a step further. I'd like to see the wearing of excessive amount of cologne and perfume banned in all places. Few things piss me off as much as some dork or dorkette occupying my personal space after they have bathed in cologne. It's absolutely repellant and it makes me want to vomit! :smiley11: Also, the Dunkin' Donuts down the street from my work has a woman behind the counter who wears a lot of cologne and when I get my coffee from her I can smell it on my styro coffee cup quite strongly for a long time. So every time I take a sip of coffee I have to smell her cologne!!! :smiley7: That does it! Where's the phone number for Senator Kennedy's office??!!! I'm taking action! I'LL SUE!!!!!!! :smiley4:

---

:smiley36::smiley36::smiley36:

this doesnt make sense. i dont see why the polititans would ban smoking all over, dont many of them smoke cigars. that is the only reason i can think of to explain low tax on cigars and outragous tax on cigarettes. smoking was ban in the city i used to live in. made moving a hell of a lot easier.

Lubbock is a college town. I'd be very surprised if they don't enact a smoking ban in the next couple years. College towns of either political persuasion have recently enacted bans, including the very conservative cities of Lincoln, Nebraska; Fayetteville, Arkansas; and even the heart of tobacco country, Lexington, Kentucky. Just this year, Georgia passed a partial smoking ban statewide, and Georgia is as red of a state as there is. I'm not sure on the smoking ban situations in America's alcohol-free "dry counties", most of which are rural and in the Deep South. If these places have not yet banned smoking in "public places" (which almost always refers to privately-owned businesses), I get the feeling that the same prohibitionary impulses that led them to ban alcohol will lead them to ban public smoking as well, probably sooner rather than later.

If ever there was a time when one political party was better for smokers (or those who value the right to consume what we want to into our bodies) than the other, that time has all but passed. I expect my theory will be reinforced at the Federal level at some point in the next few years as nationwide restrictions on tobacco (and food) will be strengthened, and a large Federal tobacco tax already given by the Department of Health and Human Services will be enacted with the support of a Republican President, Republican Senate and Republican House of Representatives. Only time will tell if I'm right.

Looks like we're seeing quite the trend here. D.C. is now contemplating a comprehensive ban and the "doing it for health" reasons is definitely winning out over any notions of self-control and responsibility. :smiley24: I definitely can't wait for the pendulum to swing to the other side. Hopefully a lot of these laws will be changed to be made more practical in later years upon greater reflection by the voters and politicians at large. Rather than look for either party to help us out, it's up to ech cigar smoker invidiually to make their voices heard by running for local offices and writing letters to the editor. We can't blame the "hammer" of government if we refuse to become the citizens who want to use it. . .or stop it from being used. :smiley16:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMAB

I could take this a step further. I'd like to see the wearing of excessive amount of cologne and perfume banned in all places.

---

Too late. Where I live, it is generally against the rules to wear too much cologne anywhere. This is specific to doctor's offices and hospitals, but I have seen official "no cologne" warning signs at entrances to malls. They did this mostly for people who are allergic to cologne/perfume. Too much sets them off.

and I live in Massachusetts which usually follows California in such unusual things!

I applaud the beautiful state of California! :smiley32:

Most public and private buildings in Newfoundland, Canada are completely scent free.

I have no problem with banning smoking in public indoor places. Every worker has a right to work in a smoke free environment. Second hand smoke is carcinogenic. Banning smoking in confined outdoor spaces is also alright by me. If I'm sitting on a patio eating dinner, I don't want to have cigarette smopke drifting into my face.

Banning smoking anywhere in public is a step too far however. And if they try to ban smoking on a golf course they'll have to pry the Cohiba out of my cold dead fingers.

Hambone, as someone who works in the hospitality industry, I demand to know why I don't deserve an alcohol-free work environment. Everybody else gets to enjoy a workplace with no presence of intoxicating alcohol. Why shouldn't I? And you wanna talk about the "second-hand" effects of a substance? When the customers I serve put enough drinks in them, unwanted come-ons of the verbal and ass-pinching variety ensue. Plus, I occasionally have to dodge physical altercations between drunks that immediately put me in harm's way. And we won't even mention the fact that I have to drive home on the roads with the people who became intoxicated by the alcoholic beverages served by me and other employees forced to serve alcohol to these customers. I, ask you, why a hospitality industry employee like myself shouldn't be able to enjoy an alcohol-free workplace just the same as an accountant or a seamstress?

The answer is no...because I knew the nature of the hospitality industry when I started and accepted the risks. People who have an aversion to cigarette smoke or alcohol should not work in bars or in restaurants that serve alcohol....just the same as someone who is allergic to peanuts shouldn't take a job at the Jif factory. It's common sense. Considering the loss of tips I would take in if my restaurant banned smoking or drinking, I don't need or want the kind of "safe" workplace you say I should be entitled to. In the past few years, I've become amazed at just how many previously uncommitted people have drank the purple Kool-Aid offered by anti-smoking zealots and are attempting to save me from myself by banning "public smoking" in the privately-owned grill and bar where I work. I would like to convey the message to cease and desist in trying to shrink my paycheck in the name of rescuing me from smokers.

I'm a reasonable guy. I support non-smoking sections. As a matter of fact, I don't smoke in family restaurants at all. I support no smoking in public places where non-smokers may be forced to be. This would include government buildings, schools, malls, hospitals, cafeterias, and things of this nature. Banning smoking in places where it's completely optional for a person to be, such as bars and bar and grill restaurants, cigar bars/stores, outdoors, etc. is simply nothing but harassment. I mean come on! What non-smoker frequents a smoking lounge anyway? This is the kind of zero tolerance crap that is becoming so popular in legislation and general rulemaking these days. It simplifies enforcement, and relieves officials of the burden of making judgement calls they are paid to make in the first place. It's CYA, pure and simple. There's no chance of being sued for a bad decision if the rule is zero tolerance to begin with.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people WANT the government to be completely responsible for their health and welfare, and how many freedoms they're willing to give up to get that security. Everyone values democracy over socialism or communism, but many seem too ignorant to understand the difference between them to begin with! :smiley13:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iced T

Too late. Where I live, it is generally against the rules to wear too much cologne anywhere. This is specific to doctor's offices and hospitals, but I have seen official "no cologne" warning signs at entrances to malls. They did this mostly for people who are allergic to cologne/perfume. Too much sets them off.

---

If I saw this here in California in any of my local malls or shopping centers I woudl bathe in cologne and slather myself up with so much that you could tell I was coming from a mile away. Just try and enforce it biznatch! Just frigg'n ridiculous!

My hometown is about to have a public smoke ban too. However there is some light in this dark hour. I think that you need to declare whether your business is smoking or non smoking, so it's possible there may be a few bars around that will still allow me to light up a cigar.

many of our bars are suffering losses because they cannot have smoking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buhz

My hometown is about to have a public smoke ban too. However there is some light in this dark hour. I think that you need to declare whether your business is smoking or non smoking, so it's possible there may be a few bars around that will still allow me to light up a cigar.

---

This doesn't seem to make sense at all. They can already do that, can't they? The whole point of the legislation would be to take the choice away from them adn make it all non-smoking. Maybe they plan on charging a fee of some sort to establishments allowing smoking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hambone

I have no problem with banning smoking in public indoor places. Every worker has a right to work in a smoke free environment. Second hand smoke is carcinogenic. Banning smoking in confined outdoor spaces is also alright by me. If I'm sitting on a patio eating dinner, I don't want to have cigarette smopke drifting into my face.

Banning smoking anywhere in public is a step too far however. And if they try to ban smoking on a golf course they'll have to pry the Cohiba out of my cold dead fingers.

---

The studies on the effects of second hand smoke are far from conclusive and do not agree with one another, so I would say it is far from proven that second hand smoke is carcinogenic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amanda

Hambone, as someone who works in the hospitality industry, I demand to know why I don't deserve an alcohol-free work environment. Everybody else gets to enjoy a workplace with no presence of intoxicating alcohol. Why shouldn't I? And you wanna talk about the "second-hand" effects of a substance? When the customers I serve put enough drinks in them, unwanted come-ons of the verbal and ass-pinching variety ensue. Plus, I occasionally have to dodge physical altercations between drunks that immediately put me in harm's way. And we won't even mention the fact that I have to drive home on the roads with the people who became intoxicated by the alcoholic beverages served by me and other employees forced to serve alcohol to these customers. I, ask you, why a hospitality industry employee like myself shouldn't be able to enjoy an alcohol-free workplace just the same as an accountant or a seamstress?

The answer is no...because I knew the nature of the hospitality industry when I started and accepted the risks. People who have an aversion to cigarette smoke or alcohol should not work in bars or in restaurants that serve alcohol....just the same as someone who is allergic to peanuts shouldn't take a job at the Jif factory. It's common sense. Considering the loss of tips I would take in if my restaurant banned smoking or drinking, I don't need or want the kind of "safe" workplace you say I should be entitled to. In the past few years, I've become amazed at just how many previously uncommitted people have drank the purple Kool-Aid offered by anti-smoking zealots and are attempting to save me from myself by banning "public smoking" in the privately-owned grill and bar where I work. I would like to convey the message to cease and desist in trying to shrink my paycheck in the name of rescuing me from smokers.

---

Well, after they finish marginalizing and demonizing smokers, drinkers are next. So just wait, its coming.

The most frequently cited case study on secondhand smoke was conducted in 1993, and the people who commandeered the study intentionally manipulated the results. Simply put, they came up with a set of figures, arbitrarily doubled the margin of error....then arbitrarily doubled the margin of error again...and then came up with oft-cited number of 56,000 annual deaths associated with secondhand cigarette smoke. While I'm no scientist, I wouldn't dispute that prolific exposure to secondhand smoke probably does cause a marginal number of deaths per year, it's far from being an epidemic....and I would surmise that the kind of casual secondhand smoke exposure endured by non-smoking bar and restaurant patrons has never killed anybody. The entire "second-hand" debate is the product of convenience. Those who don't like the smell of smoke can defer to junk science and declare the area around a smoldering cigarette or cigar to be a toxic waste dump putting them and their children in bodybags. Meanwhile, they probably inhale 100 times more carcinogens per year sitting in traffic jams on crowded freeways than they do sitting across the bar from somebody trying to enjoy a cigarette in peace.

cigar_no_baka, you may be right in your contention that drinkers will be the next to be marginalized, but I'm less sure. Smoking is "the other guy's bad habit". Most people don't smoke, even recreationally. Most people, on the other hand, do partake in an alcoholic beverage reguarly or semi-regularly. With that in mind, the urgency of passing legislation to "protect the children" from drinkers is far less cataclysmic than it is for smokers. Society is willing to put up with the hundreds of thousands of alcohol-related fatalities per year than they are smoking-related deaths because the council members don't want to miss out on the opportunity to have a few cocktails following the city council meeting where they banned "public" smoking. On the other hand, I do expect we will see significant sin taxes imposed on alcohol in the years to come. Revenue will diminish from tobacco taxes with diminishing usage, so they'll be desperately seeking a new trough to feed from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amanda

The most frequently cited case study on secondhand smoke was conducted in 1993, and the people who commandeered the study intentionally manipulated the results. Simply put, they came up with a set of figures, arbitrarily doubled the margin of error....then arbitrarily doubled the margin of error again...and then came up with oft-cited number of 56,000 annual deaths associated with secondhand cigarette smoke. While I'm no scientist, I wouldn't dispute that prolific exposure to secondhand smoke probably does cause a marginal number of deaths per year, it's far from being an epidemic....and I would surmise that the kind of casual secondhand smoke exposure endured by non-smoking bar and restaurant patrons has never killed anybody. The entire "second-hand" debate is the product of convenience. Those who don't like the smell of smoke can defer to junk science and declare the area around a smoldering cigarette or cigar to be a toxic waste dump putting them and their children in bodybags. Meanwhile, they probably inhale 100 times more carcinogens per year sitting in traffic jams on crowded freeways than they do sitting across the bar from somebody trying to enjoy a cigarette in peace.

cigar_no_baka, you may be right in your contention that drinkers will be the next to be marginalized, but I'm less sure. Smoking is "the other guy's bad habit". Most people don't smoke, even recreationally. Most people, on the other hand, do partake in an alcoholic beverage reguarly or semi-regularly. With that in mind, the urgency of passing legislation to "protect the children" from drinkers is far less cataclysmic than it is for smokers. Society is willing to put up with the hundreds of thousands of alcohol-related fatalities per year than they are smoking-related deaths because the council members don't want to miss out on the opportunity to have a few cocktails following the city council meeting where they banned "public" smoking. On the other hand, I do expect we will see significant sin taxes imposed on alcohol in the years to come. Revenue will diminish from tobacco taxes with diminishing usage, so they'll be desperately seeking a new trough to feed from.

---

Well, I don't see them banning alcohol (tried that in the roarin' twenties and they saw how well that went), but marginalizing and demonizing them...yes, I can see that coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amanda

Hambone, as someone who works in the hospitality industry, I demand to know why I don't deserve an alcohol-free work environment. Everybody else gets to enjoy a workplace with no presence of intoxicating alcohol. Why shouldn't I? And you wanna talk about the "second-hand" effects of a substance? When the customers I serve put enough drinks in them, unwanted come-ons of the verbal and ass-pinching variety ensue. Plus, I occasionally have to dodge physical altercations between drunks that immediately put me in harm's way. And we won't even mention the fact that I have to drive home on the roads with the people who became intoxicated by the alcoholic beverages served by me and other employees forced to serve alcohol to these customers. I, ask you, why a hospitality industry employee like myself shouldn't be able to enjoy an alcohol-free workplace just the same as an accountant or a seamstress?

The answer is no...because I knew the nature of the hospitality industry when I started and accepted the risks. People who have an aversion to cigarette smoke or alcohol should not work in bars or in restaurants that serve alcohol....just the same as someone who is allergic to peanuts shouldn't take a job at the Jif factory. It's common sense. Considering the loss of tips I would take in if my restaurant banned smoking or drinking, I don't need or want the kind of "safe" workplace you say I should be entitled to. In the past few years, I've become amazed at just how many previously uncommitted people have drank the purple Kool-Aid offered by anti-smoking zealots and are attempting to save me from myself by banning "public smoking" in the privately-owned grill and bar where I work. I would like to convey the message to cease and desist in trying to shrink my paycheck in the name of rescuing me from smokers.

---

LMAO!!! Well done!

Well put Amanda! On all counts! It will be interesting to see where it all goes. The anti-smoking propaganda these days is nothing short of mind boggling. It's so unneccessary! Everyone knows smoke is bad for the lungs. ALL environmental pollutants are bad for the lungs. It's no big secret. The whole thing is just an attempt to demonize the tobacco industry and further the public's desire to persecute them.

Not too familiar with the exact wording of the legislation, but it might actually be a blanket ban for Calgary. I should look into it I guess. It might be that either the entire place is smoking or non smoking, no more being asked if you want one or the other.

In Oklahoma, we can still smoke in Bars, however that's it for public places. I agree with banning of smoking in public buildings. However, outdoor places we should be able to smoke. If we are so worried about smokeing in public places in America, I think we should also ban cell phones in public places, like MOVIES!!! Or a resturant, or my favorite, in a Book/Coffee shop. Nothing iritates me more then when I'm enjoying my cup of cofee, reading a good book and a phone rings and someone starts talking on it so loud, like no one is around, and they descide to have a lecture about B.S. Subjet 101. Wish I could smoke a Cigar there so I could smoke them out!!! :smiley15: