I'll tell ya.  I hate going over to Kentucky to a bar or venue, where there's free reign to smoke.  Usually I'll leave my coat in the car, even during the winter, so I don't smell like an ashtray from other people's smoke.

 

When I was at the Mad Hatter last week, I had to leave the show early because I felt so queasy.  So much smoke.

 

I had a similar experience at Hofbrauhaus last weekend.  It was my first time in a long time hitting up a Nky bar and neither me or my friends were too pleased about the smoking situation over there.  With that said, Hofbrauhaus is still a fun time.

Aye. For a failure, it's mighty successful.

You guys are seriously weak.  When my grandfather was your age, he was on his hands and knees digging up anti-tank mines in Europe.  And you guys complain about cigarette smoke from places you entered voluntarily? 

 

Meanwhile, when everyone I'm friends with on the east coast comes back to town, we spend the time exclusively in Kentucky so that we can smoke in peace.  Sorry, but this smoking ban is more than anything else a monument to superstition and the weakening of the American male. 

You guys are seriously weak.  When my grandfather was your age, he was on his hands and knees digging up anti-tank mines in Europe.  And you guys complain about cigarette smoke from places you entered voluntarily? 

 

Meanwhile, when everyone I'm friends with on the east coast comes back to town, we spend the time exclusively in Kentucky so that we can smoke in peace.  Sorry, but this smoking ban is more than anything else a monument to superstition and the weakening of the American male. 

 

What the hell does your grandfather war story have to do with the Ohio smoking ban? 

 

You're entitled to your opinion, however, as a non smoker I'm glad the law is in affect.  Now if it can be appropriately administered.

I think he explained quite clearly what it had to do with smoking ban and I think his argument is pretty difficult to counter.

I think he explained quite clearly what it had to do with smoking ban and I think his argument is pretty difficult to counter.

 

Nothing!  People are smoking illegally and shouldn't.  I have the right to complain.

 

 

 

You guys are seriously weak.  When my grandfather was your age, he was on his hands and knees digging up anti-tank mines in Europe.  And you guys complain about cigarette smoke from places you entered voluntarily? 

 

And yet I must suffer the effects involuntarily because someone chooses to hurt them self voluntarily?

You guys are seriously weak. When my grandfather was your age, he was on his hands and knees digging up anti-tank mines in Europe. And you guys complain about cigarette smoke from places you entered voluntarily?

 

Meanwhile, when everyone I'm friends with on the east coast comes back to town, we spend the time exclusively in Kentucky so that we can smoke in peace.   Sorry, but this smoking ban is more than anything else a monument to superstition and the weakening of the American male.

 

On the contrary, I see smoking as a weakness:  succumbing to peer pressure in younger years, becoming a slave to it throughout adulthood, and even defending it like we were all born with cigarettes in our months.  Your "when my pappy was younger" story has no weight.  You know what they call that?  Machismo.

My parents smoke and they like the ban. My friends from out of state say that they wish that there states had bans on smoking in public. I don't think that it is a big deal. Is it really that hard to just walk out side and smoke then come back inside when you are done smoking? A "real" man, according to jmeck, would be able to handle that.

You guys are seriously weak.  When my grandfather was your age, he was on his hands and knees digging up anti-tank mines in Europe.  And you guys complain about cigarette smoke from places you entered voluntarily? 

 

Meanwhile, when everyone I'm friends with on the east coast comes back to town, we spend the time exclusively in Kentucky so that we can smoke in peace.  Sorry, but this smoking ban is more than anything else a monument to superstition and the weakening of the American male. 

 

snap!

You guys are seriously weak.  When my grandfather was your age, he was on his hands and knees digging up anti-tank mines in Europe.  And you guys complain about cigarette smoke from places you entered voluntarily? 

 

Meanwhile, when everyone I'm friends with on the east coast comes back to town, we spend the time exclusively in Kentucky so that we can smoke in peace.  Sorry, but this smoking ban is more than anything else a monument to superstition and the weakening of the American male. 

 

I think I will repeat what someone else noted: what does your grandfather have to do with the smoking ban? Fighting a war does not give pertinence to smoking. As for the latter comments, how is refuting facts from the World Health Organization, a 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization, U.S. National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the United States Surgeon General somehow attributed to the "smoking is bad superstition" that you have been clamoring?

 

In addition, how is this the "weakening of the American male"? Are stereotypical males expected to fight wars, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol and go to the gym to lift weights?

 

Oh yeah, let's look at John Wayne, the "American male." A chain-smoker since his youth, he developed lung cancer in 1964. Four ribs and a lung later, he was declared healthy five years post-surgery. The side effect was prolonged exertion and supplemental oxygen because of his lower oxygen capacity levels. He later took up smokeless tobacco and cigars.

 

Unfortunately, he had heart valve replacement surgery in 1978. In January 1979, the cancer returned and his stomach was removed. He died only a few months later.

 

Did you know that prior to his death, he was smoking 10 packs of cigarettes a day? That's a lot of cash, and a lot of nicotine and 4,000 other chemicals that encompass cigarettes and the smoke.

 

Oh yes, that is the all American male.

 

It's easy to stir up this group.  Maybe we should ban foul balls because you *might* get hit by one or get knocked over by someone lunging for one.  Or maybe everyone in the stadium should have to wear full face masks.     

 

Anyone here ever worked around benzene?  Had to work in a 200db engine room?  Worked with industrial band saws?  Gotten cut up and had teeth chipped on the clock?  Been attacked by sand flies?  Hung 30ft. off the water in a harness while sanding and painting a tugboat sailing full steam?  Cranked ratchets for 12 hours in 100F+ heat while having to wear jeans and a long-sleeve shirt?         

 

What's more, tobacco is native to the Americas.  To disown tobacco is to disown the loins from which you burst. 

It's easy to stir up this group.  Maybe we should ban foul balls because you *might* get hit by one or get knocked over by someone lunging for one.  Or maybe everyone in the stadium should have to wear full face masks.     

 

Anyone here ever worked around benzene?  Had to work in a 200db engine room?  Worked with industrial band saws?  Gotten cut up and had teeth chipped on the clock?  Been attacked by sand flies?  Hung 30ft. off the water in a harness while sanding and painting a tugboat sailing full steam?  Cranked ratchets for 12 hours in 100F+ heat while having to wear jeans and a long-sleeve shirt?         

 

What's more, tobacco is native to the Americas.  To disown tobacco is to disown the loins from which you burst. 

 

thank you daniel boone.

jmecklenborg, you are a national treasure.

The truth has been clouded by the smoke and haze.

Lmao @ JMecklenborg's hypermasculine views.

 

I agree that people should be able to smoke in peace because right now, second hand smoke isn't the real issue. The only effective way to prevent cigarette use is by making Tobacco a schedule I drug along with Heroin - which is technically where it would be if it weren't a part of our heritage, as it serves no medical use yet is just highly, highly addictive, more of a detriment to your long term health than cocaine and smack, and besides that, it overall rips people off and makes things complicated with luxury taxes and pooling money for healthcare plans. People should be able to smoke in peace right now, but in establishments that have signs up saying "SMOKERS ALLOWED - IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT TOUGH SH!T - GO SOMEWHERE ELSE" thus warning non-smokers/vegans/vitamin B12 injectors who hang out at GNC/etc. At the same time, you could have establishments that pride themselves on being smoke free. This is a capitalistic society and an issue that the market could easily take care of without regulating cities and diverting business to opposite sides of a river.

 

All homes and buildings have tons of toxins but no one is trying to regulate ventilation inside buildings. I didn't even know my old apt had deadly black mold until I caught chronic bronchitis.

 

I have to say though, I've been to places like McDonalds in the back woods of Kentucky and it just looks straight up trashy to see their employees smoking on the clock inside the McDonalds. There's a time and place to smoke and it's not behind the counter right next to the food you're making. Jeez.

What's more, tobacco is native to the Americas.  To disown tobacco is to disown the loins from which you burst. 

 

It's a ridiculous notion to feel that you owe yourself to a product, just because it originated where your 232 year old nation now exists.

 

Now, a mother or a father?  I can understand that.  A drug?  Give me a break.

What's more, tobacco is native to the Americas.  To disown tobacco is to disown the loins from which you burst. 

 

It's a ridiculous notion to feel that you owe yourself to a product, just because it originated where your 232 year old nation now exists.

 

Now, a mother or a father?  I can understand that.  A drug?  Give me a break.

 

The loins from which I burst were of Irish and Polish heritage.  I hope that gives me a free pass, and I don't have any ethnic obligation to take up smoking.

Lmao @ JMecklenborg's hypermasculine views.

 

I agree that people should be able to smoke in peace because right now, second hand smoke isn't the real issue. The only effective way to prevent cigarette use is by making Tobacco a schedule I drug along with Heroin - which is technically where it would be if it weren't a part of our heritage, as it serves no medical use yet is just highly, highly addictive, more of a detriment to your long term health than cocaine and smack, and besides that, it overall rips people off and makes things complicated with luxury taxes and pooling money for healthcare plans. People should be able to smoke in peace right now, but in establishments that have signs up saying "SMOKERS ALLOWED - IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT TOUGH SH!T - GO SOMEWHERE ELSE" thus warning non-smokers/vegans/vitamin B12 injectors who hang out at GNC/etc. At the same time, you could have establishments that pride themselves on being smoke free. This is a capitalistic society and an issue that the market could easily take care of without regulating cities and diverting business to opposite sides of a river.

 

All homes and buildings have tons of toxins but no one is trying to regulate ventilation inside buildings. I didn't even know my old apt had deadly black mold until I caught chronic bronchitis.

 

I have to say though, I've been to places like McDonalds in the back woods of Kentucky and it just looks straight up trashy to see their employees smoking on the clock inside the McDonalds. There's a time and place to smoke and it's not behind the counter right next to the food you're making. Jeez.

 

So a "separate but equal" sort of deal?

So a "separate but equal" sort of deal?

 

Basically my view is this: The real problem is that smoking is a burden on society and kills more people than any other drug. It's a part of our culture and originally the back bone of the economy so we give it a lot of respect (ironically, tobacco really belongs to Native Americans who responsibly used its euphoric effects during rituals and ceremonies but I digress). Ideally it would be a Schedule I or II drug, but it isn't. If it were a controlled substance, none of this would be an issue and the laws on local and state levels would be less complex. It would be a good way to prevent deaths, health hazards and health care strain. In my opinion, smoking bans mostly do nothing but manipulate people into smoking outside or taking their business elsewhere across municipal boundaries. Dry towns are obnoxious enough. I haven't seen any scientific studies on the effects of second hand smoke inside buildings but I doubt it's any worse than car exhaust near freeways or other toxins inside buildings. I think smoking bans are a waste of time. Your body can easily recover from a little inhalation of second hand smoke.

 

"Separate but equal" - I guess you could call it that, but I don't think you could call it an unethical version of separate but equal. People have the right to be in a clean environment, but by law people also have the right to smoke. There's so many inconsistencies, too. My mom smoked while I was inside the womb. She smoked while I was in the car with her and wouldn't let me roll the windows down in the winter. My house was full of smoke. To me, that's child abuse because it's constant exposure and  I had no control over it, whereas people could easily exercise their own will in society by choosing to go somewhere that is smoker-friendly or smoke-free. Actually, people would connect better with others in bars who share the same values. Smokers actually have much different personalities than non-smokers. That dynamic was blatant when I lived in a dorm. I picture JMecklenborg being one of the guys outside who were constantly screamed at by the the dorm's manager on the first floor for not being 25 feet away from the building. They were certainly their own clique.

 

Bottom line is that I think if we're going to address smoking and spend so much energy on it, we might as well get to the root of the problem. If so many municipalities are imposing smoking bans (and I take it smoking in general is on the decline), it's something congress and the FDA/DEA need to seriously re-evaluate in the 21st century.

^ I wonder why, David?

 

 

Oh...

^ I wonder why, David?

 

 

Oh...

 

Addiction isn't something to joke about. A lot of people who smoke don't really care about their health, but I just thought I was having fun and thought I could quit any time. I'm still pissed off that I let it control me. I've relapsed a few times even though I'm usually a strong-willed person. You wake up and your chest feels so tight you feel like you can't breathe; you can't focus on anything; you start acting aggressive. I couldn't go cold turkey so I had to use the patches and it's still hard with only 14mg. You really can't understand what it's like unless you're addicted.

 

Your little wise-crack above proves a certain elitism you see with a lot of non-smokers who support these petty bans.

Cold turkey is the only way and it worked for me (seven years, multiple packs daily). The physical hold is broken after three days, and the rest is all you.

Well maybe I need to try cold turkey over and over again, then. I'm down to step 2 of the patch but I still want to go back to my old habit or get higher dose patches.

 

I think what made me so addicted was staying up all night working on projects and smoking nonstop.  I bet it was the same with you, if you went to CCS in Detroit lol.

Oh, please. Don't get your pants bunched up over a comical gesture to your witty comment; I had not known of your prior additions and really do not care to know as it is none of my personal business. I don't see "elitism" in my commentaries; as a non-smoker, I perceive cigarettes to be a grave threat to the health of those who choose to smoke them, and to others who breathe in cigarette smoke. I had two parents who smoked daily; one gave it up after a double-bypass surgery, another quit using a pill-based method that had listed over 30 serious side-effects. Both had smoked for decades, and both are much happier that they quit.

 

At first, they disdained comments and measures that were being passed to prevent smokers from lighting-up in businesses or public spaces, both as smokers and later as non-smokers. They have since modified their viewpoints after I presented them with the facts of smoking; they knew that cigarettes were harmful to their own, and assumed that there were risks with secondhand cigarette smoke, but did not know the extent. Thankfully, they refused to smoke around me when I was a child or while growing up.

 

It's no secret that cigarettes contain cancer-causing carcinogens. And it is no secret that cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 traced chemicals. That has been proven scientifically. No emotion or myths are involved there, only facts. I don't intend to change my position on cigarettes in my lifetime.

 

Cigarette addiction is real, and it is extremely difficult to break. But it was a choice that made you smoke in the first place; and it was a choice that is driving your motive to quit. Good luck.

^ I wonder why, David?

 

 

Oh...

 

Addiction isn't something to joke about. A lot of people who smoke don't really care about their health, but I just thought I was having fun and thought I could quit any time. I'm still pissed off that I let it control me. I've relapsed a few times even though I'm usually a strong-willed person. You wake up and your chest feels so tight you feel like you can't breathe; you can't focus on anything; you start acting aggressive. I couldn't go cold turkey so I had to use the patches and it's still hard with only 14mg. You really can't understand what it's like unless you're addicted.

 

Your little wise-crack above proves a certain elitism you see with a lot of non-smokers who support these petty bans.

 

I understand. Hell, I battle the caffeine monster daily.  However, nobody put a gun to your head.  Just like you started, you have to REALLY want to to quit.  The patch is a crutch.  Just go cold turkey.  It's not cute, I know first hand, but its what you have to do.

Forget enforcing the ban.  If cities really want to make money, just write littering tickets.  Those can be as high as $500 in some cities, I think.  Every smoker I see in downtown Cleveland apparently believes throwing the butt on the ground is an acceptable practice.

However, nobody put a gun to your head. 

 

When did I try to justify picking up the habit? I was talking about the effect, not the cause. I know it was a lame choice.

 

Lets get back on topic.

Well maybe I need to try cold turkey over and over again, then. I'm down to step 2 of the patch but I still want to go back to my old habit or get higher dose patches.

 

I think what made me so addicted was staying up all night working on projects and smoking nonstop.  I bet it was the same with you, if you went to CCS in Detroit lol.

 

Certainly, and that was back in the day of fume-tastic Xylene-based Design markers and all night air-brush sessions (mmm...deep lung Cadnium red).

 

Breaking those associations is the hardest part, especially when your nighttime wind-down is a cigarette and your morning pick-me-up is a cigarette, and then there's the cigarette with the morning coffee, the cigarette on the bus stop or on the drive to work and the cigarette before the meeting and the cigarette after the meeting and the smoke break downstairs and the cigarette on the way to lunch and the cigarette afterwards and on and on and on...

 

Again: it's all will power and forming new habits. It is said that an action repeated daily becomes habit in a month. Whether that's a good habit or a bad habit it's up to you. At a certain point you'll just get used to not smoking.

 

Still, though, you need to decide to quit and remember why you decided to quit. I had a moment of clarity, had my final cigarette and then literally scrubbed away every trace of my life as a smoker, both inside and out. I washed, vacuumed and carpet-freshed everything that smelled like smoke. I tossed out all my ashtrays and accouterments (I rolled my smokes for years), I drank a ton of water, I got a ton of sleep, and I stalked my floor like a caged lion for three days. It sucked bad, but soon it was over.

 

After you cross the rubicon, you draw strength from quitting. Eventually you'll become an intolerant old so-and-so like me.

 

Good luck!

And scrub, clean you must. When my grandfather died, we had to clean the house from top-to-bottom until we gave up. My grandparents were both lifetime smokers, and their house really showed the effects.

 

It took us hours to clean half of the kitchen ceiling before we gave up; our rags were turning black and we had to wash them for reuse every ten minutes. The walls were equally as bad, and the wood paneling had to be stripped. The carpets had to be removed as they could not be cleaned. Repainting the walls and ceiling did not help -- you could still smell the cigarette smoke, and they were sticky from years of residue. We ended up selling the house as-is.

 

The lady who purchased it did a wonderful job on the renovations. She removed the paperboard on the ceiling and replaced it with drywall, and stripped all of the paint off of the walls and applied four coats of paint that effectively removed the lingering residue. The wood panels were stripped and restored, and the hardwood floors under the carpets were stripped and restored.

Smoking ban leads to big drop in heart attacks

 

ATLANTA - A smoking ban in one Colorado city (Pueblo) led to a dramatic drop in heart attack hospitalizations within three years, a sign of just how serious a health threat secondhand smoke is, government researchers said Wednesday.

 

The study, the longest-running of its kind, showed the rate of hospitalized cases dropped 41 percent in the three years after the ban of workplace smoking in Pueblo, Colo., took effect. There was no such drop in two neighboring areas, and researchers believe it’s a clear sign the ban was responsible.

 

The study suggests that secondhand smoke may be a terrible and under-recognized cause of heart attack deaths in this country, said one of its authors, Terry Pechacek of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 

...more...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28450513

 

^Even as a non-smoker, I find this connection difficult to believe.  If data is available from New York, LA, etc that has the same trend, that would help, but this smells like a coincidence to me.

I posted a similar article a while back, that University of Kentucky researchers discovered that asthma cases had dropped considerably since the Lexington, Kentucky (and now extending to other cities) smoking ban was put into effect. It's an on-going study, to measure the effects of the smoking ban on public health.

I don't believe that at all; sorry. It's a small town. You can expect huge variations with any sort of statistics (murders, cancer, etc.). They also only used 2 data points in a span of a year and a half. We don't know the historical trend.

bloomie expands the smoking ban in nyc:

 

http://www.ny1.com/content/news_beats/politics/139570/new-yorkers-to-enforce-outdoor-smoking-ban

 

Gotta that last 1% of smoke out of the air at any cost.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/10/smoking_ban_challenged_at_ohio.html

 

I don't smoke, never have, and I remember when some privately-owned bars permitted smoking and some didn't.  If I didn't feel like smelling smoke, I just didn't go the bars that allowed smoking, problem solved.  Sort of like how I don't go to a Chinese restaurant if I want Italian food.

 

I always find it funny that a state like Ohio, where billions of tons of pollution are allowed to bellow non-stop from factories and power-plants owned by major corporations, creating numerous health hazards to everyone (not just those going to bars/restaurants) in our state and surrounding states, yet implements tight controls on privately-owned businesses, where if you don't want to smell smoke, you can simply not go..

 

I would much rather eliminate acid rain than have to avoid a few bars that allow smoking.

Agreed with 8Titles.  I wonder why it took this long to get to the Supreme Court?

I disagree, and I am a former smoker.  The ban was in effect when I was still smoking and I preferred it then too (not at first, but I warmed up to it).  The problem is if smoking is allowed, EVERY bar will allow it.  There might have been a few that didn't pre-ban, but overall, the vast majority allowed it and I remember, as I am sure many do, how smokey a crowded bar can get. 

I don't think they have much of a case, the way they're going about it.  There are all sorts of rules that properties and businesses have to follow.  Few involve an individual opt-out provision.  And their argument (as described) doesn't address the core premise of the law, that of protecting employees.  It was this focus on employees that neutered the supposed "private club" exception.  You can only smoke at your club if it has no employees, so almost no real-world clubs can ever qualify.

I disagree, and I am a former smoker.  The ban was in effect when I was still smoking and I preferred it then too (not at first, but I warmed up to it).  The problem is if smoking is allowed, EVERY bar will allow it.  There might have been a few that didn't pre-ban, but overall, the vast majority allowed it and I remember, as I am sure many do, how smokey a crowded bar can get. 

 

I'm a non smoker and a bar employee, and I also have a pretty extensive occupational safety background.  Workplace chemical exposure laws *all* take concentration into effect, establishing a permissable exposure limit (PEL), except this one.

 

Because the referendum was so poorly written, there was a six month moratorium on enforcement.  Some bars voluntarily enforced it anyway.  Others did not, and they gained business at the expense of the former.  The fact is people who are open about their "vices" tend to be quite tolerant about the "vices" of others, and even non-smoking bar patrons were tolerant of smokers.

 

The best approach would be to dump the nanny-state current law, establish a scientifically supportable PEL and require that bars which allow smoking post this fact on their doors, perhaps in place of the snitch-line posters.  Especially with the casinos coming.

IMO, the stripper law is much more of a nanny-state law than the smoking ban.  With the stripper law, there is no legititmate health concern, just social conservatives imposing their values on the rest of the state.  I personally don't care if someone smokes, but it was nice to be able to take my pregnant wife to restaraunts and the like these past several months without any worry for the baby's health.  I also like how the ban created an impetus for bar owners to build these great patios and outdoor service areas we see popping up all over the place, although that collateral effect really has no relevance one way or the other to the constitutional challenge.

I disagree, and I am a former smoker.  The ban was in effect when I was still smoking and I preferred it then too (not at first, but I warmed up to it).  The problem is if smoking is allowed, EVERY bar will allow it.  There might have been a few that didn't pre-ban, but overall, the vast majority allowed it and I remember, as I am sure many do, how smokey a crowded bar can get. 

 

I'm a non smoker and a bar employee, and I also have a pretty extensive occupational safety background.  Workplace chemical exposure laws *all* take concentration into effect, establishing a permissable exposure limit (PEL), except this one.

 

Because the referendum was so poorly written, there was a six month moratorium on enforcement.  Some bars voluntarily enforced it anyway.  Others did not, and they gained business at the expense of the former.  The fact is people who are open about their "vices" tend to be quite tolerant about the "vices" of others, and even non-smoking bar patrons were tolerant of smokers.

 

The best approach would be to dump the nanny-state current law, establish a scientifically supportable PEL and require that bars which allow smoking post this fact on their doors, perhaps in place of the snitch-line posters.  Especially with the casinos coming.

 

Non-smokers were tolerant because they had no choice.  It was either be tolerant, or not go to bars.  I don't have numbers, but I'd bet there are alot more non-smokers out there and if you polled the current population, it would overwhelming be against smoking in bars.

IMO, the stripper law is much more of a nanny-state law than the smoking ban.  With the stripper law, there is no legititmate health concern, just social conservatives imposing their values on the rest of the state.  I personally don't care if someone smokes, but it was nice to be able to take my pregnant wife to restaraunts and the like these past several months without any worry for the baby's health.  I also like how the ban created an impetus for bar owners to build these great patios and outdoor service areas we see popping up all over the place, although that collateral effect really has no relevance one way or the other to the constitutional challenge.

 

Oh, I don't disagree one bit about the stripper law, even though I'm not one to go to those clubs (having lived with one and dated another has an effect similar to the reason the butcher does not eat sausage).  I doubt that too many restaurants go back, and those.....you simply don't patronize. 

 

I saw a complaint (maybe here) a few years back where someone was whining about smoking on the decks, which is sort of like people complaining about drinking at a bar.  :)

Bars are in business to make a profit.  If a large percentage of the population and bar goers are non-smokers who prefer not to go to bars that allow smoke (this includes me), there would be a lot of bars that wouldn't allow smoking (which there was).  And actually, I could understand a requirement for any bar that allows smoking indoors, that it must also have a smoke-free area that met certain air-quality standards as well.

 

Again, restricting the rights of individuals and small business owners, while allowing major corporations to pump billions of tons of toxic gases into the air that we all breathe, or allowing cities/states to dump billions of tons of sewage into our lakes & rivers is nothing more than hypocrisy.

I disagree, and I am a former smoker.  The ban was in effect when I was still smoking and I preferred it then too (not at first, but I warmed up to it).  The problem is if smoking is allowed, EVERY bar will allow it.  There might have been a few that didn't pre-ban, but overall, the vast majority allowed it and I remember, as I am sure many do, how smokey a crowded bar can get.

 

Okay, so every bar will allow smoking.  Whether or not one goes to a bar is a personal choice.  We're not talking about the post office.

Bars are in business to make a profit.  If a large percentage of the population and bar goers are non-smokers who prefer not to go to bars that allow smoke (this includes me), there would be a lot of bars that wouldn't allow smoking (which there was).  And actually, I could understand a requirement for any bar that allows smoking indoors, that it must also have a smoke-free area that met certain air-quality standards as well.

 

Again, restricting the rights of individuals and small business owners, while allowing major corporations to pump billions of tons of toxic gases into the air that we all breathe, or allowing cities/states to dump billions of tons of sewage into our lakes & rivers is nothing more than hypocrisy.

 

Hell, even requiring the whole place meet *reasonable* standards is fair.

 

One of the biggest issues in bars (besides weather) is unless there's an enclosed deck, you can't take your drink outside to smoke.

This law applies to a much greater spectrum than just bars

I don't remember: How could this be unconstitutional if this was changed by a referendum?