Complete Cigar Ban!

[JStrider]

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...

[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! 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!!! That does it! Where's the phone number for Senator Kennedy's office??!!! I'm taking action! I'LL SUE!!!!!!!

[grand cru no 2]

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! 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!!! That does it! Where's the phone number for Senator Kennedy's office??!!! I'm taking action! I'LL SUE!!!!!!!

[jdavis4082]

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.

[Amanda]

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.

[SFG75]

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. 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.

[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.

[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.

[Kenyth]

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!

[cigar no baka]

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.

[Iced T]

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.

[MMAB]

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

I applaud the beautiful state of California!

[Island Epicurean]

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

[jaewing]

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!

[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.

[jdavis4082]

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

[Kenyth]

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?