Dr. John Crawford and the rest of the City Council who voted to infringe on our rights should be asked to leave – this is not San Francisco. (Or the entire State of California, Ohio, Colorado, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Washington (D.C. and State), plus countless cities around the US). This is another example of fine Fort Wayne hospitality - If you don't like it, get out!
You folks who think this was a good thing are in for a big surprise – this is just the beginning. Please tell us Orwell, whats next?
I read a lot of the United Nations report on secondhand smoke, and frankly, I found as many questions and few answers and considerable stretching to come to the conclusion that secondhand smoke is a contributor to lung cancer. WOW, seriously, are we still trying to refute that smoking and secondhand smoke are contributers and large factors of lung cancer?
Now, I contend that if the City Council really wants to help the children (I forgot about all the children in the bars) and any special interest group, then they should:
I was laughing as I read these suggestions.
•Close all businesses that sell tobacco.
•Close all fast food restaurants.
•Stop all cars, trucks, buses and any other motorized devices that emit smoke and/or fumes of any kind in the city limits. I'd be more than happy to resort to an EZ-GO from the golf course.
•Stop the sale of vegetables and fruits sprayed with chemicals.
•Stop all lawn-care products and lawn-care operations in the city.
•Outlaw dry cleaning.
I am sure there are many more, but these would be a good start, then Crawford and the rest of the City Council could start working on the real issues facing Fort Wayne.
But remember, if Councilman Crawford needs help in any endeavor, he shouldn’t bother to call a veteran – we tend to fight for freedom, not tyranny. I forgot that the smoking ban was passed 1-0. We elected, they legislate.
Ever wonder about other countries? Read THIS
For a complete listing in the US, look HERE
19 comments:
I still find it amazing that this is THE CAUSE that acts as the 'call to arms" for these citizens. Of all the causes in the world, the desire to impose their smoke on others where and when they want to is what excites them to action. Wow, people continue to inspire admiration for this town with these posts. The part about ridiculous interpretation of facts and figures did not surprise me--THAT part I expect. And, by the way, the areas you mention who already recognized the wisdom of smoking bans have survived. There were no mass closings of bars and restaurants, people did not fill tour buses in order to drive to other cities or states to enjoy a cig alongside their shot. Life continued pretty much the same. Except people who did not want to inhale smoke didn't have to.
Yes, what's the big deal anyway? So a bunch of city councilmen put mom and pop taverns about of business. Who cares?
By the way, see what the ban did to Minneapolis. 100 bars closed in 20 months.
Good comments though.
I still find it amazing that people can be dumb enough to think this is only about smoking. It's about business owner's rights to regulate legal activities on their property.
Of course, people who don't want to inhale smoke don't have to right now... just don't go to the places where smoking is allowed.
ZINGER!
If all the people that hated to inhale smoke at bars (and get it on their clothes, coats, etc.) stopped going to bars because of the smoke, then the bars really would be out of business.
There's a post that not only defies supply and demand, it surely indicates a person who has never been inside a mom and pop tavern.
I wish you could still smoke in restaraunts, museums, movie theaters, public transit, airplanes, and at work. I want to die young because of other peoples actions.
I didn't know someone was holding a gun to your head to go to a bar or restaurant.
Also, see the 1998 study by the World Health Organization, no friend of Big Tobacco, which shows no link between secondhand smoke and cancer.
The stats you cite regarding Minneapolis are incorrect. First, you include bars who were financially struggling and would likely have closed ban or no ban (bars do close when there is no ban..have you been by COOPS on Bluffton Road? Or did they close because of the UPCOMING smoking ban, do you think?) The study you cite was also conducted by bar owners who were already suing the gov over the smoking ban.
Consider:
No one argues that the ban is good for everyone's health.
No one argues that I cannot partake in other personal choices whenever and wherever I choose: I can't mow my yard at 6am, I can't have a loud party until 4am, I can't even put a basketball hoop in on the curb outside my house to play basketball on my own quiet street. Yet no one cries that those are CIVIL LIBERTIES being trampled upon. People are so guided by this because it means they have to address their Addiction. The Gov is protecting our health at every turn in restaurants and bars. This is just another example. If that causes you distress because of an unhealthy addiction...perhaps your anger is misguided.
The only reputable studies that have shown harm done by smoking bans have shown harm to casinos and tobacco companies. It is time to enter this century--smoking bans are going to be the norm, as they should be. Public health is an issue we have entrusted to the government; even when it is inconvenient for some. It has nothing to do with Civil Liberties. Read the Constitution.
Following are excerpts from studies done by Reputable sources:
From the CDC: No decline in total restaurant or bar revenues occurred in El Paso, Texas, after the city's smoking ban was implemented on January 2, 2002. These findings are consistent with the results of studies in other municipalities that determined smoke-free indoor air ordinances had no effect on restaurant revenues
Data researched by the Economic Development Commission found the effects of a smoking ban on bars did not harm establishments in other cities around the country that have already imposed a ban on smoking. And no reputable studies have been produced that indicate a detriment to bar and restaurant businesses.
Scientists associated with the University of California produced a "study of studies" in 2002 that found that studies claiming to show adverse economic effects from smoking bans are procedurally weaker than other studies; are seldom peer-reviewed; and are "much more likely to be funded by the tobacco industry."
Old Fort 83 - You forgot hospitals. To hell with those non-smoking patients who were placed in a room with someone who smokes back in the day. I know if I was recovering from pneumonia, I would sure want someone in a bed next to me puffing away.
And how about grocery stores ? When Maloley's told shoppers they were no longer allowed to light up while they shopped for groceries, many predicted an end to grocery shopping altogether. Thankfully, the masses continued to come, and the combination of shopping for groceries while smoking a cigarette became a thing of the past.
Think-
We're not talking about individual civil liberties. Business owners should get to decide things like this. Health code regulating cooking things and such? Yes, the public can't really inspect the kitchen.
It's pretty easy to tell if there's smoking, though.
(And Think, on the edge of tl;dr there.)
I remember smoking in Glenbrook Mall. When I was like 14 or 15, right after they made it a "no smoking" building, there was some guy who was about 80, obviously waiting for his wife to finish shopping, just standing there in the middle of the hallway in front of The Finish Line. It was almost sad to watch him slowly turn in circles looking for the pedestal ashtrays which had been there for years.
I bet you will find most people like the booze more then they like the smoke. So bars might see some decrease in sales at first, but it will even out. Carry out stores might increase sales a bit. In a year or so we won't even be thinking about smokeing bans. It will be the trans fat ban or fast food ban we will be fighting over.
Just curious.....if second hand smoke is as hazardous as they say to be around, shouldn't there be a real shitload of people dead or dying from it?
"Former bar patrons buried today, 2nd hand smoke to blame" isn't a headline I can recall ever seeing.
If you smoke two packs a day for 50 years and die at 70, consider how long it would take to day from second hand smoke exposure, even 40 hours a week of it.
As far as the studies being funded by big tobacco, if you don't think the anti-smoking people have an agenda, then I pity your naivety.
I'd be happy if 1/3 of the bars in Fort Wayne went out of business (those that exclusively sell Budweiser on tap) - it would free up liquor licenses for hopefully good bars to come into town.
I am against the smoking ban. There are worse issues in our community that should be approached first by the government; such as crime rates, gun control, child/spousal abuse, drunk driving, etc. All of these issues that our community faces are ones that actually endanger people. Smoking is bad for one’s health, but that individual chooses to do it to their body. And as for second-hand smoke, it doesn’t actually kill people. There are many other pollutants in the air that are exposed by cars, factories, wastes, etc, and no one complains that those pollutants kill us.
I feel that it takes away our rights as “free” American citizens. It is said that we live in “the land of the free”, however our rights are limited. As for businesses, they should be able to decide if they would like to allow smoking in bars. That is a right that the owners should have, but no longer are privileged to make that decision themselves. People say that businesses may suffer, but if someone really wants to go out, they will. I, myself, work in a restaurant with a bar and dining room separated, and I have seen that the bar really doesn’t get the business that it used to. The non-smokers still sit in the dining room regardless if the bar is non-smoking or not. So why not open up the bar to have smoking so that we can satisfy everyone? Everyone should have their freedom to choose if they want to smoke or not. The smoking ban only satisfies the wants of non-smokers; even though they breath hazardous pollutants everyday, and they themselves put pollutants in the air by driving their vehicles.
Post a Comment