Ohio Smoke Free ban upheld by Supreme Court
-
Fab1b
I understand that, what I am saying is the govt tells you when, where, and how much you are allowed to drink so why are people surprised they do the same with smoking? -
DeyDurkie5
I'm not surprised at all. But the public drinking thing is a bit different in my eye than the public smoking thing because of second hand smoke.Fab1b;1183232 wrote:I understand that, what I am saying is the govt tells you when, where, and how much you are allowed to drink so why are people surprised they do the same with smoking? -
hoops23
LOL. What are you failing to understand? The people VOTED. That's how our country is ran. Something goes up for vote and the people either pass it or don't.Big_Mirg_ZHS;1183148 wrote:Failed logic. There were no smoking restaurants before the ban. Thanks to non smokers there are now no smoking restaurants remaining. I never told you where you had to eat now your telling me what i cant do in there because you MIGHT want to eat there. Im an outside smoker always have been so this doesnt bother me too much when it comes to smoking it bothers me when it comes to equality,
Obviously the majority felt smoking needed to be separated from places you EAT. Nothing more disgusting than going to a place and seeing clouds of smoke and also smelling it.
Smoking does BOTHER other individuals. As I said, I myself have asthma, and while it's under control, being around smoking can still give me a shortness of breath and mess with my allergies. Why should I have to suffer because you want to kill yourself inside of a restaurant?
There isn't equality for drinkers and non drinkers... You can't have 12 beers then go right to your car and drive home... The person next to you could have 12 lemonades and go straight to his car though.
I'm glad I don't have to subject my daughter to cigarette smoke when we go out to eat as well. -
Fab1b
I wasn't arguing from a personal stance I was just asking what the difference in govt regulating alcohol and smoking and yes the health issue is a #1 on that list but that aside there should be no surprise. Also as stated the people voted, I guess if more people smoked or liked it in and around their food, etc...they would have voted it down.
Also again I love the ban, I like eating in places that don't wreak of smoke, nor having it blown in, on, or around me. -
Big_Mirg_ZHS
You had a choice to not frequent the restaurant that allowed smoking in favor of the one that didnt. Now thanks to others who make choices for me i no longer have that choice. How is that fair???hoops23;1183246 wrote:LOL. What are you failing to understand? The people VOTED. That's how our country is ran. Something goes up for vote and the people either pass it or don't.
Obviously the majority felt smoking needed to be separated from places you EAT. Nothing more disgusting than going to a place and seeing clouds of smoke and also smelling it.
Smoking does BOTHER other individuals. As I said, I myself have asthma, and while it's under control, being around smoking can still give me a shortness of breath and mess with my allergies. Why should I have to suffer because you want to kill yourself inside of a restaurant?
There isn't equality for drinkers and non drinkers... You can't have 12 beers then go right to your car and drive home... The person next to you could have 12 lemonades and go straight to his car though.
I'm glad I don't have to subject my daughter to cigarette smoke when we go out to eat as well. -
Big_Mirg_ZHS
You had the choice to not go to those places. Now i dont have a choice.Fab1b;1183247 wrote:I wasn't arguing from a personal stance I was just asking what the difference in govt regulating alcohol and smoking and yes the health issue is a #1 on that list but that aside there should be no surprise. Also as stated the people voted, I guess if more people smoked or liked it in and around their food, etc...they would have voted it down.
Also again I love the ban, I like eating in places that don't wreak of smoke, nor having it blown in, on, or around me. -
LJ
Smokers have no rights. -
Big_Mirg_ZHS
LOL.LJ;1183253 wrote:Smokers have no rights.
Dynamite drop in there. -
Fab1b
Don't agree bro you have the choice, the same choice to visit said establishment as I do, you just choose not to because of the non smoking. That was opposite than I before where I may choose to not go because of smoking. No difference bro.Big_Mirg_ZHS;1183252 wrote:You had the choice to not go to those places. Now i dont have a choice. -
LJ
Big_Mirg_ZHS;1183254 wrote:LOL.
Dynamite drop in there.
Ive been following the whole thread. The 2 main things I get frm your posts: You mad and you think smokers have a right to smoke outside of their home. Both make me laugh. Just thought I would point out thay fact that there is no such thing as smokers rights. Kill yourself with cigs in your own home. -
Big_Mirg_ZHS
There is a difference. The owner should have the ability to decide whether he allowed it on the property or not. Now he doesnt and must cater to the wills of a group of people who decided that their ability to enjoy a meal was more important than my ability to enjoy one. Lets agree to disagree.Fab1b;1183255 wrote:Don't agree bro you have the choice, the same choice to visit said establishment as I do, you just choose not to because of the non smoking. That was opposite than I before where I may choose to not go because of smoking. No difference bro. -
hoops23
Oh, so I shouldn't have gone to places like Olive Garden, Applebees, etc because of smokers? lol.Big_Mirg_ZHS;1183251 wrote:You had a choice to not frequent the restaurant that allowed smoking in favor of the one that didnt. Now thanks to others who make choices for me i no longer have that choice. How is that fair???
Maybe one day you'll realize how incredibly narrow that train of thought is.
And it's fair because it was voted on. Obviously the majority of people felt the same way I did. Should we disregard everything that we voted for? -
Fab1b
I am not disagreeing the whether or not it should be up to the establishment owner, whether or not you have a choice to go there is the argument you presented.
-
Big_Mirg_ZHS
I already said i am an outside smoker, It doesnt bother me too much during meals, i just smoke outside no biggy. I just completely disagree with the basis of the ban. Like i said im not mad at the ban im mad at the fact smokers are looked down upon. Non smokers are not any better people than smokers are.LJ;1183259 wrote:Ive been following the whole thread. The 2 main things I get frm your posts: You mad and you think smokers have a right to smoke outside of their home. Both make me laugh. Just thought I would point out thay fact that there is no such thing as smokers rights. Kill yourself with cigs in your own home. -
hoops23
How are smokers looked down upon? Aside from the fact that they had no respect for others who were trying to eat inside of the same establishment by lighting up and blowing their smoke everywhere?Big_Mirg_ZHS;1183263 wrote:I already said i am an outside smoker, It doesnt bother me too much during meals, i just smoke outside no biggy. I just completely disagree with the basis of the ban. Like i said im not mad at the ban im mad at the fact smokers are looked down upon. Non smokers are not any better people than smokers are.
Hell, I know smokers who voted yes for the ban because they hate smoke while trying to enjoy food.
And I'd say non smokers are better people because they exercise better self control and aren't doing something to danger their health. -
Fab1b
I don't think smokers are looked any differently except by perhaps a nonsmoker, same for a drinker being looked on by a nondrinker. And not in that you are below, or stupid, or trash its just a difference of opinion on the habit itself.
-
DeyDurkie5
You have a choice to go, you just have to smoke outside. You srs clark?Big_Mirg_ZHS;1183252 wrote:You had the choice to not go to those places. Now i dont have a choice. -
Big_Mirg_ZHS
ts1227;1179972 wrote:Plus cigarettes are the easiest tax grab there is... the retards will pay whatever price is put on them. No government is going to shut that off.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.sleeper;1181757 wrote:Non-smokers ARE far superior to smokers.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.ts1227;1183141 wrote:Many chains had gone completely nonsmoking before the ban, because they wanted something other than white trash to come to their establishments. Plus the nonsmoking trend (like most all trends) started nationally WAY before Ohio came on board.Sonofanump;1183164 wrote:I do not think that you can call all smokers trash if only pertains to 87% of that population.vball10set;1183204 wrote:Sums it up pretty well...reps
There ya go. Just instances from this thread.hoops23;1183246 wrote:LOL. What are you failing to understand? The people VOTED. That's how our country is ran. Something goes up for vote and the people either pass it or don't.
Obviously the majority felt smoking needed to be separated from places you EAT. Nothing more disgusting than going to a place and seeing clouds of smoke and also smelling it.
Smoking does BOTHER other individuals. As I said, I myself have asthma, and while it's under control, being around smoking can still give me a shortness of breath and mess with my allergies. Why should I have to suffer because you want to kill yourself inside of a restaurant?
There isn't equality for drinkers and non drinkers... You can't have 12 beers then go right to your car and drive home... The person next to you could have 12 lemonades and go straight to his car though.
I'm glad I don't have to subject my daughter to cigarette smoke when we go out to eat as well. -
gut
The only flaw in that logic is the country was founded on protecting the rights and freedoms of minority groups. The justification you just gave could be used for all sorts of "discrimination" (i.e. the majority voted for it), especially when motivated by a health "scare" drummed up with junk science. Casinos in OH only passed because people saw all those revenues leaving the state. And it's certainly not hard to imagine strip clubs and other places, even bars, getting voted down because the majority doesn't frequent such establishments. You put everything up for a vote, for real or imagined issues, and you still have a nanny state just one by the majority rather than the govt.Fab1b;1183247 wrote: Also as stated the people voted, I guess if more people smoked or liked it in and around their food, etc...they would have voted it down.
Also again I love the ban, I like eating in places that don't wreak of smoke, nor having it blown in, on, or around me. -
ts1227
I'm not worried about nanny state when Ohio's extremely conservative Supreme Court unanimously calls bullshit on it. -
Fab1b
But everything isn't going up for a vote. This was more of a public health stance correct?gut;1183298 wrote:The only flaw in that logic is the country was founded on protecting the rights and freedoms of minority groups. The justification you just gave could be used for all sorts of "discrimination" (i.e. the majority voted for it), especially when motivated by a health "scare" drummed up with junk science. Casinos in OH only passed because people saw all those revenues leaving the state. And it's certainly not hard to imagine strip clubs and other places, even bars, getting voted down because the majority doesn't frequent such establishments. You put everything up for a vote, for real or imagined issues, and you still have a nanny state just one by the majority rather than the govt. -
gut
That there is no evidence/grounds of discrimination doesn't mean it's not a nanny state. Again, it's simply a nanny state by majority rule, but still a nanny state nonetheless. 99%, perhaps more, of the establishments affected the voters would never step foot in, anyway. That is what a nanny state does - they dictate choices that have absolutely no bearing on them personally. It's a law to basically protect people from themselves (and, in particular, this has been a prohibition movement from the start and no longer even a subtle one) since nobody forced you to go into these establishments. Sounds a lot like a nanny state to me.ts1227;1183300 wrote:I'm not worried about nanny state when Ohio's extremely conservative Supreme Court unanimously calls bull**** on it.
I've alway said this issue is properly framed as a nuisance law, not dissimilar to noise ordinances. Of course, in such scenario it never gets the votes, and that's where the junk science comes in to play a critical role. -
gut
Oh, but therein lays the ruse. It's proven time and again that people suspend objectivity/skepticism when things go the way of their natural self-interest. The "public health" aspect was largely manufactured by "enlightened" politicians with the support and backing of Big Pharma.Fab1b;1183309 wrote:But everything isn't going up for a vote. This was more of a public health stance correct?
It's always been about prohibition. Why else would the choice be 100% bans as opposed to the sort of regulation/licensing approach mentioned by several in this thread? Never really even needed to be voted on to accomplish a BETTER end result for all affected. At the heart of it all - and this was really my point - is you have a movement that gained support by way of manipulation and deception. It's not a matter of "what else" is up for a vote but what will be next. And there are all kinds of new movements out there not dissimilar to where the ETS movement was 20 years ago - trans fats, fatty foods, sugar... -
vball10set
Sure we are...just ask usBig_Mirg_ZHS;1183263 wrote:Non smokers are not any better people than smokers are.
-
Sonofanump
You are up there with Isodore and Footwedge with your failed rationale. </SPAN></SPAN>Big_Mirg_ZHS;1183169 wrote:All umpires referees and officials are all power hungry and suck at their job, wait i cant say that if its only pertaining to 80% of referees.