Ohio Smoke Free ban upheld by Supreme Court

• sleeper

  

  As for the law, smokers are the worst. I wish they would make a pack of cigarettes $100; they could make a ton of money because the morons would still buy them.
• Mooney44Cards

  

  hoops23;1181250 wrote:The people voted. The majority spoke to abolish smoking in public places... Isn't that how our government is set up?

  I agree. People voluntarily giving up small rights in exchange for protections from the government is as old as the country itself. Rights aren't absolute, despite what people want to think (especially the whole "freedom of speech" thing, which people tend to take too literally)
• hoops23

  

  We have a patient who has a stoma due to tracheotomy... It's disgusting. She's in her 40's and looks like she's pushing 90. She can't talk, she can only gasp loudly. She's only got about 5 teeth.
  
  Just a mess. She developed throat cancer after being a heavy smoker for several years...
  
  I could not imagine going through that or looking like that knowing that I was the cause of it.
• bigkahuna

  hoops23;1181250 wrote:The people voted. The majority spoke to abolish smoking in public places... Isn't that how our government is set up?

  Reps for simplicity
• WebFire

  confucius99;1181147 wrote:??? Really?
  I'm kinda new around here. Are people on this site normally this obtuse?

  If that's going to be the argument, then it applies to all.
  
  Nobody has to go out to eat. Nobody has to use municipal water supply. You can't just choose one to fit your argument. Talk about obtuse.
• HitsRus

  

  ^^^Actually you do. If you live on a street that has such a water supply, you would be required by code to tie into it and pay for it. Your house would have to be plumbed accordingly. The burden of paying for that would fall on you. Now I suppose you could buy some big tank of water and use a cistern or some such nonsense, but how practical would that be? A lot less practical and alot more expensive to comply with government laws than simply choosing to not to walk into a bar that posts conspicuously that it allows smoking. No law says that a bar HAS to allow smoking, so in this day and age, I suggest that non smoking establishments would do pretty well and would outnumber smoking establishments considerably. Hence the non-smoker would not be at a disadvantage in finding eateries and bars to "eat out at".
  

  People voluntarily giving up small rights in exchange for protections from the government is as old as the country itself. Rights aren't absolute,

  
• dlazz

  HitsRus;1181409 wrote:^^^Actually you do.

  Just because you pay for it, doesn't mean you have to use it.
  
  (stupid gif here)
• WebFire

  HitsRus;1181409 wrote:^^^Actually you do. If you live on a street that has such a water supply, you would be required by code to tie into it and pay for it. Your house would have to be plumbed accordingly. The burden of paying for that would fall on you. Now I suppose you could buy some big tank of water and use a cistern or some such nonsense, but how practical would that be? A lot less practical and alot more expensive to comply with government laws than simply choosing to not to walk into a bar that posts conspicuously that it allows smoking. No law says that a bar HAS to allow smoking, so in this day and age, I suggest that non smoking establishments would do pretty well and would outnumber smoking establishments considerably. Hence the non-smoker would not be at a disadvantage in finding eateries and bars to "eat out at".
  
  
  
  

  I pay for what I use.
  
  The point was that argument can be used for a lot of things and it isn't always a good one. Yeah, I can choose to not go where smokers go. But everyone can go when smoking is banned. I just feel that if you serve the public (yes, I know it's private property), the public shouldn't have to tolerate something that is both unhealthy and annoying.
  
  Let me also say that if the state made it a law without a public vote, I would be against it. But the people voted, and made their voice heard. I have no problem with that.
• HitsRus

  

  Let me also say that if the state made it a law without a public vote, I would be against it. But the people voted, and made their voice heard. I have no problem with that.

  The country was set up as a republic where representaitves accountable to the people hopefully, make thoughtful well discussed , rational decisions on laws. It is bad enough that our representatives are subject to influence from lobbyists...but it is far worse when people who are generally uniformed make decisions on the basis of TV ads and half truths perpetrated by special interests, to make laws that affect others rights and freedoms.
  Just say no to ballot initiatives as a method to pass laws. Not just for this, but really for anything.
• Mooney44Cards

  

  HitsRus;1181542 wrote:The country was set up as a republic where representaitves accountable to the people hopefully, make thoughtful well discussed , rational decisions on laws. It is bad enough that our representatives are subject to influence from lobbyists...but it is far worse when people who are generally uniformed make decisions on the basis of TV ads and half truths perpetrated by special interests, to make laws that affect others rights and freedoms.
  Just say no to ballot initiatives as a method to pass laws. Not just for this, but really for anything.

  Except that the very same TV ads and special interests that influence voters does the same to elect representatives, who aren't really accountable to the people who elected them, just those who pay for their campaigns and those who pay for the campaigns will in turn continue to run ads get the politicians elected. Vicious cycle.
• Big_Mirg_ZHS

  

  No one citizen should have more rights than another. That is what pisses me off
• 2kool4skool

  

  If you're not allowed to snort cocaine in the privacy of your own home, I don't see why you should expect to be allowed to smoke cigarettes in public.
• goosebumps

  

  Big_Mirg_ZHS;1181571 wrote:No one citizen should have more rights than another. That is what pisses me off

  What "extra" rights are non-smokers getting? You sound silly.
• goosebumps

  

  Since when is smoking in public a right? Everyone keeps talking about how the govt is taking away their "right" to smoke in public. Did I miss some important proclamation from the founding fathers?
  
  I see way too many people on welfare getting their Advair, Albuterol, Spiriva, Combivent, Ipratropium, etc. etc. filled with our tax dollars for me to give two shits about smokers "rights". Even if you don't get lung cancer, if you smoke long enough you will need something to help you breath at some point and that shit ain't cheap. "but, but, but I have private insurance" SO that just means your coworkers are paying for your ignorance. The government can't tax cigarettes enough to pay for what they cost the health care system.
  
  And you can't compare smoking's detriment to your health to fatty foods. Last time I checked you can't live off cigarettes, but you can live off fatty food. Are fatty foods good for you? no, but they sustain life, cigarettes are neither healthy nor sustain life.
• hoops23

  

  Big_Mirg_ZHS;1181571 wrote:No one citizen should have more rights than another. That is what pisses me off

  This is what you're not grasping. It wasn't one citizen vs another, it was a group as a whole. We voted on the issue and the majority spoke out. I don't even think it was close if I remember.
• WebFire

  HitsRus;1181542 wrote:The country was set up as a republic where representaitves accountable to the people hopefully, make thoughtful well discussed , rational decisions on laws. It is bad enough that our representatives are subject to influence from lobbyists...but it is far worse when people who are generally uniformed make decisions on the basis of TV ads and half truths perpetrated by special interests, to make laws that affect others rights and freedoms.
  Just say no to ballot initiatives as a method to pass laws. Not just for this, but really for anything.

  So either way you agree this should be law. Because the representatives are supposed to represent what the people want, and they obviously want the law based on how they voted as individuals.
• Sonofanump

  No one citizen should be able to poison the air of another with cancer. That is what pisses me off.
• cruiser_96

  

  goosebumps;1181577 wrote:Since when is smoking in public a right? Everyone keeps talking about how the govt is taking away their "right" to smoke in public. Did I miss some important proclamation from the founding fathers?
  
  I see way too many people on welfare getting their Advair, Albuterol, Spiriva, Combivent, Ipratropium, etc. etc. filled with our tax dollars for me to give two ****s about smokers "rights". Even if you don't get lung cancer, if you smoke long enough you will need something to help you breath at some point and that **** ain't cheap. "but, but, but I have private insurance" SO that just means your coworkers are paying for your ignorance. The government can't tax cigarettes enough to pay for what they cost the health care system.
  
  And you can't compare smoking's detriment to your health to fatty foods. Last time I checked you can't live off cigarettes, but you can live off fatty food. Are fatty foods good for you? no, but they sustain life, cigarettes are neither healthy nor sustain life.

  See, for me, the problem isn't that people are smoking. It's that we are economically tied into what we do. Granted, it's no one's fault but mine if I choose to be a part of an insurance company, but then again, in the near future, won't we all be forced to be tied in!? Thanks, Barry (federal)! (And Mitt. by state)
• Big_Mirg_ZHS

  

  Sonofanump;1181608 wrote:No one citizen should be able to poison the air of another with cancer. That is what pisses me off.

  I'm poisoning the air?? Hahaha. Your probably one of those people who fake coughs when I'm my requirede 30 feet from the entrance and you smell my smoke. Its the perception that non smokers think they are better than smokers. That's the part that pisses me off. And the whole we voted on it. Yeah I don't like people I don't agree with making my choices. Go be uppity non smokers some more and call us idiota.
• Big_Mirg_ZHS

  

  Sonofanump;1181608 wrote:No one citizen should be able to poison the air of another with cancer. That is what pisses me off.

  I'm poisoning the air?? Hahaha. Your probably one of those people who fake coughs when I'm my requirede 30 feet from the entrance and you smell my smoke. Its the perception that non smokers think they are better than smokers. That's the part that pisses me off. And the whole we voted on it. Yeah I don't like people I don't agree with making my choices. Go be uppity non smokers some more and call us idiota.
• Gblock

  WebFire;1181082 wrote:Smoking isn't banned because it's bad for your own health. You can't compare alcohol to smoking in this situation at all.

  yes but the people who are in there getting their health ruined by smokers are also in killing themselves with alcahol so it just is kind of an oxymoron. my point is that for almost every type of devient behavior in this country there is place or a forum where you can participate in that activity and i see smoking as no different. smokers should have a right to have places they can smoke at imo. and i dont smoke i cant stand it.
• HitsRus

  

  smokers should have a right to have places they can smoke at

  This. There is a difference between public places and private property open to public accomodation. It's my bar/restaraunt...and if I want to cater to smokers, I should be allowed to. If I want to cater to non-smokers, I should be allowed to. If I want to make delicious food that contains trans fats and sell them to people who want to eat it, I should be allowed to provided I disclose any health risks. That's called freedom to pursue my happiness. If you are not happy being in a smoke filled environment, don't come into my restaraunt. If you don't want to consume trans fats, don't buy my food. Go to a place that makes you happy.
  What is so f******hard about that?
• ts1227

  

  Big_Mirg_ZHS;1181571 wrote:No one citizen should have more rights than another. That is what pisses me off

  
  Adults have more rights than children yet both are citizens (and working teenage children are taxpayers too). Those who have not committed a felony have more rights than those who did, and all of the rules in place to make it as such are arguably arbitrary.
• WebFire

  HitsRus;1181624 wrote:This. There is a difference between public places and private property open to public accomodation. It's my bar/restaraunt...and if I want to cater to smokers, I should be allowed to. If I want to cater to non-smokers, I should be allowed to. If I want to make delicious food that contains trans fats and sell them to people who want to eat it, I should be allowed to provided I disclose any health risks. That's called freedom to pursue my happiness. If you are not happy being in a smoke filled environment, don't come into my restaraunt. If you don't want to consume trans fats, don't buy my food. Go to a place that makes you happy.
  What is so f******hard about that?

  So we should just do away with the health department?
• WebFire

  Gblock;1181618 wrote:yes but the people who are in there getting their health ruined by smokers are also in killing themselves with alcahol so it just is kind of an oxymoron. my point is that for almost every type of devient behavior in this country there is place or a forum where you can participate in that activity and i see smoking as no different. smokers should have a right to have places they can smoke at imo. and i dont smoke i cant stand it.

  Drinking alcohol only harms your body if it's abused. So me having a drink has no affect on my health. And definitely not yours.
  
  You have plenty of places to smoke.