Ohio Smoke Free ban upheld by Supreme Court

• goosebumps

  

  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.

  
  It's called a Hookah bar
• sleeper

  

  Big_Mirg_ZHS;1181613 wrote: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.

  Non-smokers ARE far superior to smokers.
• Sonofanump

  I'm all for smokers doing what they want in private, it helps with the tax base. Public poisoning is not warranted.
  
  Does it bother anyone else to drive by a vehicle that has an adult smoking in it, then you see a four year old in the child seat. Nothing like harming your offspring for life.
• cruiser_96

  

  My brother and I made with two smoking parents. It happens.
• gerb131

  

  sleeper;1181757 wrote:Non-smokers ARE far superior to smokers.

  Um no no your not.
• WebFire

  cruiser_96;1181767 wrote:My brother and I made with two smoking parents. It happens.

  Doesn't make it right. That's just a common sense issue though.
• cruiser_96

  

  WebFire;1181781 wrote:Doesn't make it right. That's just a common sense issue though.

  I've made it this far without common sense. It happens.
• pmoney25

  

  I probably developed bladder cancer through second hand smoke growing up with two parents who smoked.
  
  Luckily they caught it early. That obviously can never be proved but that is what I and my Dr think.
• cruiser_96

  

  My bladder was funny. I peed the bed unitl I was 12 or 13. Also, I have a very low tolerance for holding my pee. It doesn't take drinking much to make me have to go.
• ts1227

  

  cruiser_96;1181767 wrote:My brother and I made with two smoking parents. It happens.

  
  Yeah, but it's still a piece of shit thing to do regardless of the outcome.
• 2kool4skool

  

  Big_Mirg_ZHS;1181613 wrote:Its the perception that non smokers think they are better than smokers

  Better in what way? In regards to decision making and willpower, they certainly are. I'd also venture a guess that the average IQ of non-smokers is higher than that of smokers.
• queencitybuckeye

  2kool4skool;1181978 wrote:I'd also venture a guess that the average IQ of non-smokers is higher than that of smokers.

  At least one study has been done that indicates that this is true.
• Big_Mirg_ZHS

  

  I have a high enough of an IQ to be in mensa so try again bud.
• bigkahuna

  Big_Mirg_ZHS;1182289 wrote:I have a high enough of an IQ to be in mensa so try again bud.

  Typical OC response
  
  We all have the following
  
  1. Six figure jobs
  2. Super model gf's/wives
  3. 4.3 40 speed
  4. 8.5" members
  5. IQs of 150+, even though we don't know the difference between there, they're, their, your, you're, and to, two, too.
  5a. We should probably just rename this sight mensachatter.com
• WebFire

  bigkahuna;1182334 wrote:Typical OC response
  
  We all have the following
  
  1. Six figure jobs
  2. Super model gf's/wives
  3. 4.3 40 speed
  4. 8.5" members
  5. IQs of 150+, even though we don't know the difference between there, they're, their, your, you're, and to, two, too.
  5a. We should probably just rename this sight mensachatter.com

  Not to mention, a sample of 1 always seems to be enough proof.
• GOONx19

  

  Big_Mirg_ZHS;1182289 wrote:I have a high enough of an IQ to be in mensa so try again bud.

  Big_Mirg_ZHS;1181614 wrote:I'm poisoning the air?? Hahaha. You're probably one of those people who fakes a cough when I'm my required 30 feet from the entrance, and you smell my smoke. It's 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 idiots.

  FIFY. You may be a genius, but there's no way you passed middle school English. I didn't even mess with your sentence structure.
  
  I don't have a problem with anyone smoking, but you'd think a genius would realize that smoking causes irreversible genetic mutations that result in a suboptimal DNA repair capacity. The connection between that subpar capacity and an quickened rate of carcinogenesis has been proven time and time again. If you do realize that but continue smoking, then it's time to question your decision-making abilities. There aren't many ways that humans have more control over their well-being than by not smoking. Staying fit and avoiding tanning beds are just about it.
  
  As for non-smokers having more rights than smokers, that's just a ridiculous statement.
• GoPens

  

  sleeper;1181253 wrote: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.

  Mark the date. I actually agree with Sleeper about something...
• Sonofanump

  Big_Mirg_ZHS;1181614 wrote:requirede idiota.

  I felt inferior because I thought these were past tense Portuguese words from our mensa (or is it mense?) member.
• WebFire

  2kool4skool;1181978 wrote:Better in what way? In regards to decision making and willpower, they certainly are. I'd also venture a guess that the average IQ of non-smokers is higher than that of smokers.

  I bet most pit bull owners are smokers.
• 2kool4skool

  

  Big_Mirg_ZHS;1182289 wrote:I have a high enough of an IQ to be in mensa so try again bud.

  But apparently not high enough to understand what the word "average" means.
• HitsRus

  

  So we should just do away with the health department?

  
  ????what does that have to do with what I posted? "The Health Department" has been existence long before cigarettes and tobacco became unpopular.
• ts1227

  

  HitsRus;1182436 wrote:????what does that have to do with what I posted? "The Health Department" has been existence long before cigarettes and tobacco became unpopular.

  Yes, but the argument has to do with why this particular health department statute should be a property right issue in the mind of some, but only that statute.
  
  One could argue that if a business should have a choice to affect patrons health negatively by allowing smoking, why wouldn't it be a property right for everything else they enforce, thus eliminating the need for health departments? Smoking just hits home because so many people do it, but what really makes it special compared to anything else that the health department enforces?
• HitsRus

  

  The health department is necessary for unseen dangers, ones that the public cannot easily ascertain. Smoking is easily identifiable so people are aware. All of these nanny state health issues can easily be solved by simply making the public aware via clear obvious posting of warnings and then letting them choose if they wish to be in a smoky bar/restaraunt...eat high fat content food, etc.
  
  As the majority of people are nonsmokers, there would be plenty of establishments willing to cater to them.
• gut

  ts1227;1182439 wrote:... but what really makes it special compared to anything else that the health department enforces?

  Because most of what the health department and FDA do is to protect people from what they can't observe - you don't usually see the kitchen or how the food is prepared.
  
  I've looked at a lot of the research and the only thing I can conclude with confidence is that ETS is a new approach to prohibition, likely motivated by soaring health costs of smokers (although there is also research questioning the actual social costs of smokers vs. non-smokers when you factor in life expectancy).
• gut

  queencitybuckeye;1179872 wrote: The number of bars in an area is already controlled by law. Add to the licensing process a distinction between smoking and non-smoking bars and grant licenses for each in proportion to the percent of smokers. IOW, if a city has 10 bars and 20% of the population smokes, 8 of the bars would be licensed as non-smoking, 2 as smoking.

  A very common sense approach, and hardly ground-breaking nor an elusive idea. But tolerance/accommodation does not fit with the prohibition-minded agenda. It's working, too - smoking rates have dropped significantly and continue to decline. High taxes weren't particularly effective, but gradually taking away opportunities/places to smoke is proving to be very effective.