Omaha/Nebraska Smoking Ban

FatGuy · Post by **FatGuy** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 7:57 pm

Sorry for the rambling post. I went to the jays game and spent a handful of hours in a bar. I smell like dirty smoke too. Sucks.

Asten · Post by **Asten** » Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:17 pm

FatGuy wrote:"The Blue Room" is smoke free. I must say, it has a great atmosphere.

Hahaha... good one!

joeglow · Post by **joeglow** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:09 pm

I am not a smoker. However, I have a problem with the government saying I, as an owner, cannot create a business catering to people who partake in a particular LEGAL activity. I can open establishments that cater to women, men, cowboys, gays, drinkers, etc. However, if I want to open a business that caters to smokers, the government tells me know. Why is that?

Secondly, could I in essence establish a "private club?" If I were in Lincoln, could I make my bar a pritvate club, requiring a membership? Essentially, I would sell yearly, monthly or even nightly memberships (nightly ones for $1)?

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 3:32 pm

Those are two issues I've grappled with myself. I hate gov't interference - especially in private business - but smoking becomes an issue of public health.

I think the issue of catering to people who want to participate in a legal activity is valid, but falls apart because it forces people AROUND those people to participate involuntarily. Someone at the end of the bar drinking doesn't get me drunk or give me liver disease. Two guys making out in the corner doesn't make me gay. Smoking gives me emphysema and all the other fun stuff like smelling bad and not being able to breath or taste anything.

As far as the membership thingy goes... actually, I'm sure this has been tried somewhere before. It's essentially how bars handle serving alcohol in Utah. I suppose states/cities could regulate it by charging an astronomical amount for this type of "license".

However, my sympathy falls apart when you consider cigarettes would be completely gone if the gov't had a spine and would make them subject to the FDA. Additionally, the amount of money smokers cost everyone in this country annually in health insurance premiums and lost wages is just plain nuts.

Additionally, as an ex-smoker, I can vouch for how hard it is to break that addiction. If it were less socially acceptable, less accessible, more expensive and even flat-out illegal, there would be MILLIONS of lives saved nationally in just a few years. 3000 deaths annually are attributed to smoking (300 of which are second-hand) each year - in Nebraska alone. Name something else 100% preventable that kills that many people.

-Big E

Maverick · Post by **Maverick** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:21 pm

I think the issue of catering to people who want to participate in a legal activity is valid, but falls apart because it forces people AROUND those people to participate involuntarily

This "captive audience" argument has been use so many times... I find it absolutely amazing, as it can not apply here. Captive audience is usually used to limit free speech. You only have free speech if your audience has the choice to not listen. This how you can legally use "offensive language" and nudity on cable tv, but not over-the-air tv (your audience has the choice to not recieve cable tv). However, it obviously doesn't apply here. You do not have to be in the bar. You do not have to work in the bar. That is your choice.

I do not smoke. I hate second hand smoke. I often leave a bar if it's too smokey. And I love it when I go to a non-smoking bar, usually in a city that has such an ordinance. However, I would NEVER tell a person what legal things he or she can do in a place they own. Nor do I think the government should.

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:45 pm

Sultana's Kahve in Lincoln (a hookah bar [though no alcohol]) went "private." It costs you $1 to become a lifetime member.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:18 pm

I still go back to my guess that the average non-smoker isn't around enough smoke to have an ill affect. I don't even notice anymore if I do smell like smoke.

Scuzz · Post by **Scuzz** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:00 pm

Maverick wrote:
I think the issue of catering to people who want to participate in a legal activity is valid, but falls apart because it forces people AROUND those people to participate involuntarily
This "captive audience" argument has been use so many times... I find it absolutely amazing, as it can not apply here. Captive audience is usually used to limit free speech. You only have free speech if your audience has the choice to not listen. This how you can legally use "offensive language" and nudity on cable tv, but not over-the-air tv (your audience has the choice to not recieve cable tv). However, it obviously doesn't apply here. You do not have to be in the bar. You do not have to work in the bar. That is your choice.

I do not smoke. I hate second hand smoke. I often leave a bar if it's too smokey. And I love it when I go to a non-smoking bar, usually in a city that has such an ordinance. However, I would NEVER tell a person what legal things he or she can do in a place they own. Nor do I think the government should.

This mo fo has it dead on. Great post... That's is exactly the point...

You don't want to work or be inside of a smoky bar; go to a non-smoking bar or other venue to enjoy our night. What's your problem with that? Not enough non-smoking bars

. Guess what, if there is a demand for something, someone will be smart enough to capitalize on it.

Big E (and others of this similar logic) - support those establishments that offer this alternative. Then, leave the other bars alone and watch to see if they follow suit. If they do, your side wins in a very non-GW way.

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:59 pm

If you don't want to go to a bar that has a lot of these guys>

then go to a bar that has this policy>

OmahaJaysCU · Post by **OmahaJaysCU** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 9:50 pm

Screw comming home and smelling like smoke, we can get over that, but the one thing everyone seems to avoid is how bad second hand smoke is for people's health. The toxins people are exposed to when breathing second hand smoke are deadly. It amazes me how so many people love to ignore that fact. I guess those people haven't lost 2 relatives to smoking who NEVER smoked in their life. How fair is this? They don't smoke all their life in order to protect their good health and because they work in a bar where there is smoke they deserve to be killed by this? Thats like saying a police officer deserves to get shot if he/she chooses to work as a police officer, and well, they can pick a different career, I mean people shouldn't get to do a job that they enjoy. I guess the same goes for people in the military, I guess they deserve to die in warfare, because, well, dispite their love for serving their country, they deserve to die. Same can be said for firemen, they should deserve to die in a burning building because thats the career they picked and thats what happens. Give me a freaking break. Why is it that every single one of these jobs have some kind of codes or laws in order to protect their well being and protect their life. Oh wait, there is one exception, the batrenders and waiters/waitresses. I guess its just tough luck for them.

In the end this issue comes down to one thing, selfishness. If you are too selfish to take your smoke outside to protect the health of everyone else around you, then I pray to god you have a heart attack while doing so, because you are the ungreatful |expletive| who only thinks of themself. Since after all, no one else matters in life but yourself. right?

Asten · Post by **Asten** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:48 pm

OmahaJaysCU wrote:In the end this issue comes down to one thing, selfishness. If you are too selfish to take your smoke outside to protect the health of everyone else around you, then I pray to god you have a heart attack while doing so, because you are the ungreatful |expletive| who only thinks of themself. Since after all, no one else matters in life but yourself. right?

Amen! Selfish, irresponsible, and rude.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:31 am

It's the old Libertarian mantra: Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

The old "if you don't like it don't come in here" argument has worn itself out. If you use that argument, then you have to concede to never EVER smoke outside in a public place. Ever. Anywhere. Oh, but somehow that violates YOUR "rights" (I'm still looking for the Smoke Amendment to the Constitution, BTW)...

If you think it's my job to find another place to patronize to avoid your smoke, then you need to go someplace else to avoid me spitting on your head or pouring water in your lap or whizzing in your beer. Any one of those things would get me arrested (or punched), but somehow blowing emphysema in my face is kosher? Get real.

Going beyond the selfishness, rudeness, and sheer stupidity of smoking, this is a serious public health issue with real costs and consequences. And it needs to be curtailed.

-Big E

TechnicalDisaster · Post by **TechnicalDisaster** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:15 am

-You somehow missed the whole point. I do not care about you or any other customer. My concern is the owner and his/her right to invest tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in a business that caters to who the heck ever they want to. If someone wants to open a business that caters to people who whizz in other's beers (assuming that was determined to be a legal activity), great. However, something tells me they may not get that many customers.

Are you suggesting it is unfair for the government to regulate safety for consumers?

If I invested a ton of money on a business, I should be able to allow whatever unsafe act I want? What about the cost on society?
As long as I cater to people who want my services, it's ok?

You do not want greedy business people to operate without safety regulations from the government. Greed=Harm.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:23 am

The government is about to outlaw sulfur in diesel fuel do to carcinogens but it seams they are still overlooking something, tobacco. Who’s running this place?

joeglow · Post by **joeglow** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:26 am

bradley414 wrote:
Are you suggesting it is unfair for the government to regulate safety for consumers?

If I invested a ton of money on a business, I should be able to allow whatever unsafe act I want? What about the cost on society?
As long as I cater to people who want my services, it's ok?

You do not want greedy business people to operate without safety regulations from the government. Greed=Harm.

-However, who forces you do visit said establishment? Otherwise, people are partaking in a legal activity and knowingly accepting the risk. It comes back to the selfish argument. You selfishly think you deserve to go to every business in town and they need to accomodate your wishes.

I do not support prostitution in a business here because it is illegal. I do not support gambling in a business here because it is illegal. I do not support serving beer to teens because it is illegal. Unfortunately, smoking is a LEGAL activity and YOU make the choice to be around it.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:33 am

I guess I’m selfish as well. I would like to go to any bar or club what have you and not have to have my eyes burn cloths smell and have carcinogens in the air.

You smokers can sure go out and enjoy yourselves wile your chain-smoking it up so WHY CANT I ENJOY MYSELF! You had it your way for ever now its about time you where courteous to us non smokers!

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:37 am

Smoking, prostitution, gambling and underage drinking.

One of these things kills people. Three don't. Guess which one has the strongest lobby?

<<<<
You selfishly think you deserve to go to every business in town and they need to accomodate your wishes.
>>>>

Like. say, segregated lunch counters? We aren't that removed from that, you know. Let's let the Klan open a restaurant and only allow white Christians in. Hey, you don't like it? Go somewhere else.

How about going to a restaurant that follows proper handling, storage and cooking procedures? Why do all of the health codes that apply in the kitchen seem to be irrelevant in the dining room?

-Big E

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:52 am

They’ll let us argue about smoking until we are blue in the face but they lock the football thread??

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:39 pm

Big E wrote:It's the old Libertarian mantra: Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

The old "if you don't like it don't come in here" argument has worn itself out. If you use that argument, then you have to concede to never EVER smoke outside in a public place. Ever. Anywhere. Oh, but somehow that violates YOUR "rights" (I'm still looking for the Smoke Amendment to the Constitution, BTW)...

If you think it's my job to find another place to patronize to avoid your smoke, then you need to go someplace else to avoid me spitting on your head or pouring water in your lap or whizzing in your beer. Any one of those things would get me arrested (or punched), but somehow blowing emphysema in my face is kosher? Get real.

Going beyond the selfishness, rudeness, and sheer stupidity of smoking, this is a serious public health issue with real costs and consequences. And it needs to be curtailed.

-Big E

As mentioned several times in this very thread, I do smoke outside and I don't smoke around anybody that doesn't do it themselves. I sit in non-smoking sections and go outside to smoke even it's allowed. No need to make them smell bad, effect their health, or anything else. My bad habit should be my burden I have to carry w/ me until I quit

. I'm trying to quite it's just hard.

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:48 pm

Big E wrote:Going beyond the selfishness, rudeness, and sheer stupidity of smoking, this is a serious public health issue with real costs and consequences.

-Big E

Okay that upsets me off. I know the health factors and all that, am I stupid? No, I'm freaking addicted. It's an addiction buddy, remember you had it too so don't think you're better than anybody else that smokes. Anyway, I just had to say that. Peace

TechnicalDisaster · Post by **TechnicalDisaster** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:42 pm

You selfishly think you deserve to go to every business in town and they need to accomodate your wishes.

Your right, I am selfish. When I pay for a meal, I expect it to taste and smell good, not smell and taste like smoke.

-You seem to be struggling with this whole legal thing. One is against the law (race based discrimination or violating health codes) and the other is not (smoking). I would support an all out ban of cigarettes. Make them just as illegal as any other drug. However, until you do that, you cannot cherry-pick parts of our constitution and laws that apply.

Protected classes get certain protections and rights under the law. Just like Wheelin complained that Epply didn't have bathrooms up to spec, People suffering from Asthma should be considered a protected class and be able to eat at any smoke free restaruant they want. Are you really going to tell Wheelin that he should have chosen another airport? What do you think the federal goverment ruled on that?

People (Like myself) have phyisical limitations on how much irratating smoke we can handle before we need medication to deal with it (Asthma). Business owners are required by law to cater to physical disabilities, why is mine not included?

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:49 pm

OK, I'll amend the statement: Smoking isn't stupid, it's an addiction. STARTING smoking is stupid. I won't back off of that one. And yes, I was stupid when I started (16).

As far as the legality of smoking goes... I think that's exactly what those of us lobbying for a smoking ban are trying to address. It's like saying, "Well, if owning slaves were illegal I'd stop doing it. What's that? Emancipation what?" And we all know how that goes. There are hundreds of examples of things that were legal that now aren't that people fought and fought to keep legal that we now think is absoutely insane.

As far as protected classes, children already are... smoking around a child in the state of Nebraska can be considered child abuse.

And Adam, I don't think all smokers are a-holes or inconsiderate. (Some are, but I think they would be that way whether they smoked or not.) I just don't think that most realize how horribly offensive their actions are to others. I know I didn't.

-Big E

Asten · Post by **Asten** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:21 pm

joeglow wrote:Why does it have to be a zero sum game? Why is it that everywhere either has to be smoking or non smoking? Why can't the person with their life savings on the line decide who he/she wants to cater to? Why can't some places be smoking and some be non-smoking?

This is astoundingly simple: economics.

Lincoln, California, and many other places are handling smoking bans just fine. Like it or not, the time is coming where everywhere will be like this.

I for one, welcome our clean air masters!

OmahaJaysCU · Post by **OmahaJaysCU** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:11 pm

-Joeglow, you keep emphasizing how smoking is a legal activity, just because it is legal doesn't make it right. This is just like millions of other issues the world has faced over the years. It was legal to own slaves, that wasn't right. It was illegal for women to vote, that wasn't right. It was illegal for minorities to vote, that wasn't right. I could continue the list on and on forever. Bottom line is, this legality may look pretty on paper, but to most people, even the ones who smoke, hate the activity of smoking. I have never experienced this addiction, and hope to never have to, but wouldn't you think not being able to smoke in a bar/resteraunt might help people quit smoking? If a group of workers goes to a bar every night to have a drink and smoke don't you think not being able to smoke in that bar might help them quit? I remember seeing this a while back so I don't remember it exactly, but it was a study that showed how most smokers in America hate it and want to stop, they just can't. Wouldn't this be a nice way to help them out? And not only would it help them, but it would increase the health of the community as a whole.

joeglow · Post by **joeglow** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:52 pm

Although I think it is disgusting that you would try to compare owning another human being to smoking in a business that you can choose to not enter, I will address this.

I would LOVE to see smoking made illegal. I think the a-word (I DON'T want to debate this) should be made illegal. But the fact remains that while it is legal, it IS legal. So long as smoking is legal, I think it is bull **** for you to think you can tell me if I can allow it in MY PRIVATE business.

I am not forcing you to smoke (you CHOOSE to enter MY PRIVATE business).

Basically, I am curious what legal basis you use to state you have a right to enter my PRIVATE business and demand that no one smoke.

almighty_tuna · Post by **almighty_tuna** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:09 pm

joeglow wrote:I think the a-word (I DON'T want to debate this) should be made illegal.

"A-s-s"?

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:11 pm

almighty_tuna wrote:
joeglow wrote:I think the a-word (I DON'T want to debate this) should be made illegal.
"A-s-s"?

Huh

OmahaJaysCU · Post by **OmahaJaysCU** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:13 pm

But if you can do whatever you want with your private business, why can't you run a prostitution house and sell drugs? Sure, they're illegal, but they're still limiting your ability to run your private business like you want it. Why do bars have to close at 1 (I think)? Its not illegal to be out after that time, but does that stop the government from limiting your ability to run your business as you like? No. Can you make food in kitchens that violate health code violations set ub by the government? No. My point is the government whether you like it or not DOES already limit your ability to run a private business, smoking is no different. The government has many times actively banned legal activities in public places, so why is this any different?

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:18 pm

Geese give me a break. You cant do what ever you want with your private business there are all kinds of codes you must fallow and so on.

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:28 pm

There comes a certain point when, for whatever reason, the government has to step in and protect someone from harming them self.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:33 pm

<<<<
Basically, I am curious what legal basis you use to state you have a right to enter my PRIVATE business and demand that no one smoke.
>>>>

The Nebraska Clean Indoor Air Act.

"No person shall smoke in an indoor place of work where smoke pollution causes discomfort."

I believe that this precedes the part that states:
"Restaurants with less than 1200 square feet or a bar may declare an establishment smoking in its entirety."

And I think it disgusting that one would compare giving me cancer or emphysema with me using the "A" word... which I, in fact, censored willingly... (ok, because I knew the site would do it anyway)

And that's not debating. ;)

-[expletive] E

Post by **Omaha Cowboy** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:31 am

Friends-

The social issues pro-con over public smoking will rage on and on and on and on..Good arguments have been make on both sides..We are to the point in the debate here of 'repetitive rehashing'..History dictates that intelligent debate USUALLY ends at this point and a potential insulting flame war could begin..

IF this happens, the thread will close..

(Just a gentle nudge for everyone to perhaps move on)..

Thanks..

..Ciao..LiO....Peace

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:56 pm

Consider this thread the new home for ranting about your rights to give people cancer!

-Big E

praymojo420 · Post by **praymojo420** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:58 pm

Bah, open a window if you don't like it. Or check this out, walk away. Don't go to a bar. Crazy, I know.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:03 pm

If people were so concerned about health and well being than we would outlaw twinkies and McDonald's immediatly and makes criminals out of those who peddle heart attacks and obesity to children by selling this poison. (Aren't you all thinking about the children? ) If this was about protecting yourself from someone else's stupidity than we would ban alcohol (we all know how well that went) so people won't crash into you or something else either killing and injuring or driving up insurance costs.

There are few public places for people to hang out and drink at. They are called bars. There are even more public places for people that don't want to drink to hangout at. Restaurants, parks, movies, pools and dozens of other places. Drinkers only have a few options to publically drink. So why not give the smokers limited public places to smoke? That way this minority group can have there place to gather and not affect you just like drinkers have places to gather without affecting you. What's so wrong with that?

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:14 pm

Ehh just let me urinate in your beer if you want to smoke that bad. Why is it ok for your addiction to harm MY HEALTH? I don't deserver your backwash carcinogenic poisons just so you can take the edge off for a minute.

praymojo420 · Post by **praymojo420** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:17 pm

Well you do have these things growing from your |expletive| called legs.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:17 pm

Hey DTO drinking and driving is already illegal. you wanna allow that now too?

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:19 pm

No. But it's perfectly legal to do what leads up to that illegal behavior that injures and kills people in a public setting. Why is smoking any different than drinking.

praymojo420 · Post by **praymojo420** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:21 pm

Ack, he already said it's directly detremental to others not just yourself. A better analogy is the car itself. Burning those fossil fuels into the air isn't good.