Complete Cigar Ban!

[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.

[cigar no baka]

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.

[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.

[cigar no baka]

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.

[CoventryCat86]

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!

[Kenyth]

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.

[Buhz]

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.

[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.