Public Smoking to end in Hawaii

lol Ben you reading our newspapers now? I dont smoke and very few people light up here it seems. I dont know what the big deal is but hey, I am all for no smoking.

 

I was in Waikiki Hilton a couple weeks ago. I enjoyed a good cigar in the open air lobby/lounge area with some coworkers friends. I did not hurt anybody except possably myself. Too bad people want to force others to live to their expectations at the cost of our freedoms.

I did notice there were no ashtrays, I had to use the plant by the table. SO possably I hurt a plant also.

 

Be interesting to see what effect it has on their tourist industry.

 

I wish it would end here in Ohio

 

Very little, I would assume, seeing as how it is a long, smoke-free flight from just about everywhere else (that's standard now on most airlines including international ones, isn't it?)

In Texas, a smoke-free motel room costs more than a stinky one (or did in 2002).

 

Yeah, it's horrible that non-smokers expect to have the freedom of walking and breathing clean air. It's a shame that such a ban would take away your liberty of forcing others to either hold their breath or inhale your second hand smoke. How dare they! The very idea!

 

Yeah, it's horrible that non-smokers expect to have the freedom of walking and breathing clean air. It's a shame that such a ban would take away your liberty of forcing others to either hold their breath or inhale your second hand smoke. How dare they! The very idea! </font>[/QUOTE]So then you are for a ban on perfume, cologne, aftershave, fingernail polish, hair products and such. How about camp fires and barbeques.

After all if I dont like the smell of your barbeque then you are infringing on my rights.

Did I mention I was in the out of doors, open air.

 

Although I'm in favor of personal rights (rights of individual businesses to decide for themselves), since the public is forced to pay for the healthcare of others, it becomes a public concern. A few years back, they did an experiment in Helena MT and banned smoking; the death rate dropped about 50% almost overnight, and returned to normal when the ban was rescinded.

Now, it was a fairly short test (something like 3 or 6 months), so is not conclusive. But, interesting, nonetheless.

BTW, I saw a bumper sticker that said, "If you don't smoke in my air, I won't spit in your drink".

Oh, and perfume, etc., is banned in many workplaces already.

 

Then you are against motercycles, cliffdiving, sking, rollerblading, redmeat, salt, cars, sports, and all other dangerous or unhealthy things.

After all if you get hurt the public has to pay for healthcare. That makes it their buisness.

An employeer can ban anything they want in their building and while the employee is on their time. An employeer can say you cant smoke while I am paying you, thats fine. Should perfume be banned by the goverment.

Just looking for somebody who is consistant with their views.

 

Perhaps, if you would read what I said instead of putting words in my mouth, you would see that what you said is not what I said.

I said it's a public concern.

In the Helena case, the death rate went down among non-smokers as well.

I'm all for requiring helmets on motorcycles and seatbelt usage in cars. I'm all for limiting lawsuits when someone is injured while rollerblading.

"Concern" and "ban" are not synonymous.

 

Yeah, they're different brand of deodorant, aren't they?

 

More and more of our rights are being taken away. I don't think the gov. should have the authority to ban smoking in work places. It should be up to each business.

 

DeeJay, you say you have the right to smoke; that's fine. I and others equally have the right to not breathe your carcinogen-laden smoke. If you want to smoke, then fine; just don't do it near me, light up in the privacy of your own home.

And yes, I am also concerned about the carcinogens in exhaust fumes and wish the government here would take more action to make car manufacturers produce less-polluting vehicles. As for diet, that;s more of a grey area for me: on the one hand, what you put in your body is up to you and, unlike smoking and other forms of pollution, it doesn't directly affect others; however, should the rest of us pay for the increased healthcare costs of those who dine at McDonalds regularly?

 

Mat
I am not wanting smoking on airplains where you dont have a choice about breathing the smoke. I am talking about smoking outside. The out side is big enough for smokers and non smokers.

I also think the resterants and bar owners should have the choice of smoking or non. Nobody is forced into a certen restaraunt. If you dont like smoke then go to a restaraunt that is non smoking. Personaly I would not eat with smoke in the air.

By the way to be clear I am not a smoker, well not really I enjoy a cigar about 3 or 4 times a year.

 

Don't be silly.

 

Don't be silly. </font>[/QUOTE]Why is that silly. I said banning out door smoking was taking away our freedoms. Somebody else said that they had the freedom to be outside without having to smell the stink of the smoke. I pointed out that there are several other smells that may offend somebody. Why are those smells not banned also.

The comment "dont be silly" does not contribute to this conversation in any way. If you have an argument one way or the other then make it. If not then refrain from posting just for the sake of posting.

 

Don't be silly. </font>[/QUOTE]Why is that silly. I said banning out door smoking was taking away our freedoms. Somebody else said that they had the freedom to be outside without having to smell the stink of the smoke. I pointed out that there are several other smells that may offend somebody. Why are those smells not banned also.

The comment "dont be silly" does not contribute to this conversation in any way. If you have an argument one way or the other then make it. If not then refrain from posting just for the sake of posting. </font>[/QUOTE]Comparing inhaling cigarette smoke to smelling perfume, and after shave is silly. Does that really need explaining??

And spare the posting lecture.

 

Don't be silly. </font>[/QUOTE]Why is that silly. I said banning out door smoking was taking away our freedoms. Somebody else said that they had the freedom to be outside without having to smell the stink of the smoke. I pointed out that there are several other smells that may offend somebody. Why are those smells not banned also.

The comment "dont be silly" does not contribute to this conversation in any way. If you have an argument one way or the other then make it. If not then refrain from posting just for the sake of posting. </font>[/QUOTE]Comparing inhaling cigarette smoke to smelling perfume, and after shave is silly. Does that really need explaining??

And spare the posting lecture. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, it does need explaining. DeeJay has a valid point.

Smoking wasn't a "sin" until it was decided that is was unhealthy. Suddenly it is a great evil that Christians go crazy over while blasphemy is all around us an no one seems to care.

If Smoking is a sin, then drinking Coke, eating cake and filling up your gas take is a sin too.

Not to mention your backyard barbecue.
For the record, I don't and have never smoked. This is one more area that the goverenment is way out of bounds.