Omaha/Nebraska Smoking Ban

praymojo420 · Post by **praymojo420** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:25 pm

Dude, seriously. Slow down and read the words. You can see the smoke coming from cigarettes. You can see to stay away from it. You can 'choose' to leave. If you see some guy bending over a gerney with his pants pulled down and a sign on his back that says 'AIDs', you're probably not going to go get some. What I'm saying is: Smoking is very blatent. You can see the cigarettes, you can see the smoke coming from them. If you don't like it, walk away.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:31 pm

What does being able to see it have to do with making it ok? It's bad for others bottom line. Hence people should be able to go to a restaurant or bar and not have to deal with it. Others shouldn't have to stay home or not go into place just to avoid your cancer. It is your smoke so keep it to yourself if not keep away from me.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:35 pm

BTW you have 5 years to get ready so by then you should make it easier on yourself and quit. Or take up chew.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:37 pm

MTO wrote:So driving in cities means its in doors?
What does not seeing ecoli mean? It is still deadly. Maybe we should have a totally unregulated place for you to go get AIDS and stuff at since you hate control so much.

Everyone's got AIDS. da dunt dunt daaa. AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS!!!

I still have a question for all of you pro-ban people. Why can't smokers have a place to smoke just like you all will have places without smoke? Seems pretty fair to me.

10 points for Mojo with the Aids guy.

praymojo420 · Post by **praymojo420** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:17 pm

MTO wrote:What does being able to see it have to do with making it ok?

You can see to stay away from it. You can 'choose' to leave.

^I'm tired of typing that. It doesn't make it okay. It makes it able to be avoided.

It's bad for others bottom line.

Agreed.

Hence people should be able to go to a restaurant or bar and not have to deal with it.

Yeah, some kind of non-smoking section or some such thing should be made available. Oh wait!

Others shouldn't have to stay home or not go into place just to avoid your cancer. It is your smoke so keep it to yourself if not keep away from me.

We reserve the right not to serve whomever we choose.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:50 pm

That's a lot like swimming in the non-peeing section of the pool.

You can see the yellow and feel the heat, and you can choose to get out. I guarantee you swimming in someone else's pee is less harmful than eating in their smoke.

-Big E

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:08 pm

What do you want to allow pets in restaurants now to?
In this country we try to protect our citizens from harm. If that means making you go outside to smoke then just add it to the list of EVERY OTHER guideline we have. You will have places to smoke your car your house outside and some others. Just think of it being an expansion of the not smoking in malls, gyms and offices. Your sure dealing with that just fine.
heck within 5 years just think how much more you will have to pay that mean |expletive| government in taxes on your cancer sticks.
You want to be able to cater to a certain crowd? Well just because you may want to cater to pedophiles don't mean they can go there and molest children. Point is you already can't do some stuff so again tack it onto the list.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:10 pm

Has it come to this? Pee?

Eric I have a question for you and I want a straight answer.

Why can't there be establishments that allow smoking as well as those that ban smoking? Why have all smoke free establishments? And don't go into it's affecting my (your) health. Smokers and Non-smokers would be seperate from each other.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:43 pm

Explain how that would work? Require every bar and restaurant to build two duplicate places? Go ahead tell us all about it?
Smokers will have a place to go smoke don't kid yourself... OUTSIDE! MWAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAAAAAA

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:01 pm

That was very well put. Some of that I haven't even thought of yet. I doubt they will have a clue even if they read it a couple times.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:40 pm

I've had relatives that have died from smoking too. And do you know what? It's their own stupid fault. I have a grandmother who's been smoking since her teens and from what I've heard she just quit not long ago. I have seen her try to quit many times. It still doesn't mean that I can tell other people not to do it.

And how is alcohol not a poison? Ever heard of alcohol poisoning? It's not ludicrous to compare it to smoking. Both are something people do for pleasure that can have harmful affects to people around them.

I don't by this cancer BS from second hand smoke either. It's not that bad. And if you are all so worried about it I doubt you're even around it enough for it to affect you.

No it's not discrimination to have smoking in a restaurant. I guess it's discrimination that certain clubs will only let you in with certain clothes on. Someone call Jesse Jackson and the ACLU.

If businesses were smart they would open non-smoking businesess. But they aren't.

praymojo420 · Post by **praymojo420** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:45 pm

From a legal standpoint, it's discriminatory. How is telling someone with asthma, bronchitis or any other number of respiratory illnesses to go someplace else because we allow smoking any different than telling someone in a wheelchair to go someplace else because we don't have a ramp?

Ah, a leg to stand on(pun intended). Well, if you're going to bring law into this, I'd say being around smokers is a liability. As far as the law is concerned however, it's the responsibility of those with such diabilities as asthma etc. to avoid smoke. Should it be that way? Probably not. But now we have to get into liabilities. People in wheelchairs can't go skydiving. Why? It's a liability. Whoever is operating such an event is responsible that the people are of able body to jump out of a plane and 'land' safely on the ground. Not everywhere is wheelchair accessable. Mostly that is reserved for 'public' or 'official' buildings. For the most part private buisness's don't need to be wheelchair accessable.

But I'm straying from the analogy you said we all shouldn't make. These are mostly all good points you make, but we're still dealing with a legal substance. And types of establishments that have been available long before many handycaps were discovered.

Ah, but you say where are the opium dens and slave auctions. Yes it is as you've said ethics. A good deal of drugs today are illegal because of their addictiveness. But, that's where ethics leave the building. The follow-up reason, if you will, is because these were all imported drugs grown on foreign ground. Tobacco is so ingrained in American society because it was a major crop when the country started out. Along with cotton, corn, blah. That is why it lingers today as a 'legal' stimulant.

Being so 'ingrained' into our societal life already, many have accepted it and moved on. And laws have been built around it. Methods have even been made to blatently show the harmfulness of them.

But that's not the issue. The issue is, what legal substances(food, drug, otherwise ingested) can or can't owners allow in their establishments.

But, for the sake of you two blabbing on about this for another page, I offer a solution(not for Omaha, now anyways). A law that stipulates a large sign outside an establishment stating whether or not smoking is allowed within.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:48 pm

We are not trying to tell people what to do we are wanting to stop them from going into bars and restaurants. Smoke outside if you want to. We are protecting the health of ourselves. And yes second hand smoke is harmful. I doesn't matter if you think so or not. I thought we are over that stop being to naive. It don't matter if one person breathes it in for one second and never dies its the fact that your addiction gave them exposure to carcinogens.

Uffda · Post by **Uffda** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:18 pm

People in wheelchairs can't go skydiving.

Yes they can --- tandem jumps allow them to do this.

For the most part private buisness's don't need to be wheelchair accessable.

I think private businesses have to follow ADA guidelines on accessibility.

OK here is a solution --- bars that want to allow smokers to smoke need to create a sealed walled-in area (maybe glass walls -- floor to ceiling with own ventilation) in their establishment where patrons who want to smoke can go and still be part of the bar scene. The entrance to this area would have to be set up so the smoke doesnt escape from this area into the main bar area when a smoker enters or exits.

Sound extreme? I use to go to lots of restaurants where when you said non-smoking you were escorted to a back room where they stuck all the non-smokers. The main eating area with the decor and possibly windows was always out front and had the smokers in it.

Times have changed --- the smokers will survive or quit.

praymojo420 · Post by **praymojo420** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:28 pm

Haha, those who don't have long to live shall do so as second class citizens.

Yes they can --- tandem jumps allow them to do this.

I stand corrected.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:41 pm

I'd actually be curious to know if anyone here was aware of the Nebraska Clean Indoor Air Act:

http://www.hhs.state.ne.us/enh/neciaa.htm

Basically, this is a law that has been on the books for over 20 years, which - had it been enforced properly (thank you Adi Pour) - would largely have eliminated the problem. It prohibits things such as happy hour specials in areas that are only smoking (bars) and requires equal amenities be available to ALL patrons despite the smoking status of their section, such as: TVs with sound in all areas, pool tables, video games, etc, as well as access to bathrooms without walking through the smoking section. (Basically, if there's Keno in a smoking section, there is supposed to be Keno in a non-smoking section.)

Tell me why conservatives and an alarming number of prior-to-now-nonexistant neo-libertarians are suddenly outraged by a populace simply asking for current laws to be enforced. It can't possibly be the 13% of liberals in Nebraska rallying their base and exercising their Constitutitonal right to petition their government, thereby affecting change. (Before you bring it up, there is no right to smoke. I've read the thing dozens of times: it ain't in there.)

I KNOW the build-a-wall illegal-is-illegal crowd would NEVER consider bending interpretation or enforcement of laws for their own purposes. So what gives? Why is one of the last TRULY ridiculously stupid and lethal things our government allows the populace to do the thing you've decided to rally around as a martyr for civil liberties? Isn't there a defenseless fetus somewhere, or some teenage kid that might catch a glimpse of digital sideboob on Grand Theft Auto whose soul you can save?

Edit: For clarification, I'm not trying to necessarily label anyone here. I've brought debates and points I've had elsewhere into this thread. But, I stand by my statements nonetheless: why is this issue suddenly the poster child for civil liberties in a state that hasn't exactly been the model before now?

-Big E

Asten · Post by **Asten** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:01 am

Uffda wrote: Times have changed --- the smokers will survive or quit.

Or die...

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:52 am

praymojo420 wrote: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.

Or check this out...if you want to smoke, don't go to a bar. You don't go to a bar to smoke, you go to a bar to drink.

And, by the way, this isn't a partisan issue, I know just as many conservatives as I do liberals who are for the smoking ban. That's largely the reason it passed.

You "right" to smoke stops once it hits my eyes/clothes/lungs.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:46 am

I still don't see why you all can't have places that allow smoking. Smoking is a recreational activity. Like some recreational activites, it can harm others that don't do that form of recreation. Here's a quick list.

-Smoking.
-Drinking.
-Hunting. (Dick Cheney)
-Biking. Both pedal and motor kinds.
-Driving/racing

As you can see, all of these other acceptable forms of recreation have public places to partake in such activities. (i.e. Bars, reserves, bike trails, roads, and racetracks.)

Why can't smoking have it's place? Because it's affects have been exaggerated. But it's not about the affects on people. It's about why is this one form of recreation demonized, while others with even more obvious negative affects are accepted?

TechnicalDisaster · Post by **TechnicalDisaster** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:03 pm

DTO Luv wrote:I still don't see why you all can't have places that allow smoking. Smoking is a recreational activity. Like some recreational activites, it can harm others that don't do that form of recreation. Here's a quick list.

-Smoking.
-Drinking.
-Hunting. (Dick Cheney)
-Biking. Both pedal and motor kinds.
-Driving/racing

As you can see, all of these other acceptable forms of recreation have public places to partake in such activities. (i.e. Bars, reserves, bike trails, roads, and racetracks.)

Why can't smoking have it's place? Because it's affects have been exaggerated. But it's not about the affects on people. It's about why is this one form of recreation demonized, while others with even more obvious negative affects are accepted?

From CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/27/in ... index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Separate smoking sections don't cut it: Only smoke-free buildings and public places truly protect nonsmokers from the hazards of breathing in other people's tobacco smoke, says a long-awaited surgeon general's report.

The dangers from second hand injuries you list are either accidental or stem from breaking law. Your line of thinking suggests that if we ban smoking in public places, we should ban baseball bats since they can be used to hit people with.

The fact is, the Legal use of cigaretts have been tied to injuries and sickness (read the article I posted too). The ban on smoking in public places helps limit the injuries.

Your'e right that all of activities that you listed have thier place, but they are not without thier own laws. I have a right to bear arms, but I don't have the right to discharge firearms and hunt in the city limits. You have the right to smoke, but not inside buildings where you can and do harm other people by it.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:10 pm

If you're not there in the first place, it's not doing harm to you.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:45 pm

D'Shawn you most be a closet physicist, that equation was brilliant.

Asten · Post by **Asten** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:53 pm

DTO Luv wrote:If you're not there in the first place, it's not doing harm to you.

If the smokers aren't there in the first place, it isn't doing harm to me either. The ones causing the problem are the ones which action is taken against, not the rest. From an equal protection standpoint, this is making all places accessible to everyone. Smokers can go to a non-smoking place and suffer no ill effects, whereas the reverse isn't true. It's that simple.

The goverment has the onus of making laws to protect individuals from other individuals. This is just one more. It's no different than outlawing stabbing someone, improperly using noxious chemicals, or driving through red lights.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:58 pm

I was going to say something to that effect but I doubt our physicist could comprehend it.
So you telling me to stay at home to avoid the smoke huh? You telling me never to go to my favorite places with all of my friends? I should just sit at home and be by myself? You think I should just never go to the Sokol again (thats a f#%^ing joke)!? That is pure bullshit!

smoking ban = clean air for all

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:18 pm

I haven't been reading this thread because it's all the same old thing, but I think businesses should pay a license fee similar to a liquor license that would allow smoking in their private establishment. If they don't want to pay extra, then no smoking. Just a thought.

I wonder if there are going to be any "speak easys" popping up that allow smoking similar to the prohibition period.

edited for grammar

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:20 pm

^ yeah ran by DTO Capone.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:34 pm

Asten wrote: It's no different than outlawing stabbing someone, improperly using noxious chemicals, or driving through red lights.

No it isn't. Smoking is a socially acceptable form of recreation. (Like drinking.) It can have harmful effects on partakers and bystanders. (Like drinking.) Drinking is only allowed in a few public spots, as smoking should be. Smoking is not the only vice that can affect you.

And again I pose this question to all of you. Why can't it be left up to the bar owners to decide if they want to ban smoking?

I still don't buy all of your guy's |expletive| about "protecting the public health". If that was the case and you really wanted the government to protect you from the ill effects of someone else's 'problem' than you all would be for banning alcohol. This way there's no more drunk driving accidents. Notice the hypocrisy.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:39 pm

All this coming from a kid who thinks they should get rid of driver licenses and all driving laws.....

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:55 pm

I like Adam's idea.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:35 pm

What speak-easies?

adam186 · Post by **adam186** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:40 pm

^The smoking license for businesses.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:41 pm

Wasn't that already shot down?

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:44 pm

No no no. The speak easys. ;)

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:49 pm

Ok lets just have these places pay to allow poisonous air in their establishments.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:52 pm

Well we already have places that pay to allow poisonous liquids to be drank. Why not?

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:57 pm

Since when does alcohol have carcinogens in it mr. physicist? DTO do you even know what carcinogens are?

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:08 pm

Did you know that there's stuff in beer that makes you want to run over children, puppies, the American flag, and the Heisman trophy?

Same fear tactics you all are using.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:18 pm

Ok now it's like talking to a 15 year old.. You still don't understand that backwash smoke it harmful do you?

carcinogen | noun a substance capable of causing cancer in living tissue.

Reread that for an hour and get back to me.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:28 pm

Well that's pretty much all I ever hear from your side. "Second hand smoke causes cancer." No it doesn't. "Smoke makes my clothes smell bad." Then don't go. It seems you all have the rationalle of a 5 year old. If you don't like something, why be around it.

MTO · Post by **MTO** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:30 pm

OMG your so adorable
DTO if you can't comprehend this then why are you even in this discussion?