New Orleans Passes Extensive Smoking Ban

a reply to: seentoomuch

And now we see the result of pretending to be scared of smoke

How can anyone possibly say no to a ban on bbqs and woodburning appliances while they pretend that a smoker 50 feet away is causing them headaches, asthma attacks etc.

Tired of Control Fresk

They did this in my hometown. It's not that bad. The bars added nice patios with fire pits, TVs, and music.
I smoke but even when I go to a town without the ban I won't smoke in a restaurant. It just seems impolite to me now.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You know - this is what really kills me about self-entitled zelots

Here is the situation. There is some poor business owner. He is operating a business that he has probably invested his life-savings into. The business is modestly successful but along come the puritans insisting that they have the right to decide what customers he can cater to. The inside of his restaurant MUST be non-smoking by law.

Then they deputize him and force him to enforce a law imposed on his private property. His wait staff must deal with irate smokers or he will be heavily fined for non-compliance.

His competitors - not being completely stupid - pay someone $50 bucks to go smoke in his restaurant so that he will be found in non-compliance and have to pay a fine, thus reducing his profit margin. Of course, not being stupid, he does the same for his competitors.

To save his investment, the man pays about $100,000 of his own money to build a patio to accomodate his smoking customers.

After all this - on some fine sunny day - a man arrives to have lunch with his children and "politely" ask the smokers not to smoke.

There is nothing polite about this situation - no matter how politely the zealot phrases his request.

The owner has made it clear that he wishes to accomodate smokers on the patio but this zeolot really thinks he has the right - on someone elses property and without having invested a dime on the patio - to override the wishes of the owner and his customers.

He has arrived - you see - and his desires are what comes first at all times and in all circumstances.

And somehow - this puritan - actually believes he is being "polite".

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I agree. It's not the governments job. They shouldn't be forcing this on businesses unless they make smoking illegal all together.

a reply to: JessicaRabbitTx

Who would smoke in a restaurant or bar, knowing that the owner will get the fine?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I said when I go places without the ban. I still smoke in bars without a ban.
As I said, I agree that it shouldn't be a government choice.

a reply to: JessicaRabbitTx

LOL sorry

And how would you feel if some jackass walked into a bar where the owner is still allowed to cater to smoking customers, and "politely" asked you not to smoke?

Is he being rude? Even if he says "please"

Tired of Control Freaks

If I wanted to open up a bar for cigar smokers who don't even inhale but also rarely expose their smoke to bystanders...

I would be labelled as a criminal. My money would be no good, and I would be spat upon. Doesn't matter if I'm a World War II Veteran or not. Wouldn't matter if I had paid all my taxes for the year. The second I spark up something combustible, the government views me as a criminal, enough to at least fine my person for a few thousand dollars.

Is this communism or capitalism? I've lost track...and I don't even reside within Obama's jurisdiction. Sad times

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Yes I would think he was being rude. If the owner allows patrons to smoke, it shouldn't be anyone else's business.

a reply to: JessicaRabbitTx

I am glad you agree! Puritans often use stories like this to demonstrate how "rude" smokers are and that is why more laws are needed to ban smoking in more places.

I was once in a trailer provided by a hospital for it smoking staff. One nurse liked to go to the trailer with her smoking friends. The nurse was a non-smoker. She laid a complaint that the trailer was too smokey - guess what happened. The trialer was taken away.

Imagine that - smokers leave a warm shelter to smoke outside because a non-smoker wanted to intrude into the space of smokers!

Tired of Control Freaks

If you put your cigarette out in the street. You get a fine of £75 for littering.
This is overkill. If a fine must be imposed, they should at least make it fare but my friend is in his sixties and lives on £72 a week benefits.
Another problem I have is the ban on planes.
Before the smoking ban the air in the cabin was clean and fresh, as planes would continually use an air filtration system.
Since the ban they stopped using them hence people catching bugs and viruses.
Not sure if that's true but I`m sure I read it somewhere........

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Nyiah
According to one post on this thread, a so-called business owner reports

I'm actually the president of my s-corp which is a bar that serves food. I've worked my ass off in the service industry to own my own place. My bar is actually know as a very smoke friendly bar. Our patio is the same size as our dining area. When bands are playing there is a full window for people on the patio to see the bands play. Our law state that smoking is banned in a structue that has four walls and a roof. Most bars built a patio with 2 or 3 walls and left the other sides of the structure open. My patio is a triangle, so it can have 3 walls and a roof.

There are some bar owners that complain that the smoking ban hurt their business but it's just an excuse. I rethought the smoking ban and figured out a way to make it more profitable for me. People come to my bar for my patio. So if it's to cold for you to smoke outside in Canada or England that's your fault for living there. Today I will go to work in my subtropical climate and be happy that I work for myself. Can you say the same?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You may not, however, tell others that they cannot smoke on private property where the owner has given permission to smoke.

LOL, Hulk Angry when he doesn't get his smoke. Although, the establishment allows smoking I have every right to courteously or not courteously ask someone to not smoke its called freedom of speech.

I have my kids with me at dinner and someone sits next to me after we started eating and they start to smoke and their smoke is getting all over my kids. Yeah , I'm going to ask them politely if they can stop till we leave or possibly sit some where else.

However like I stated in my previous post, because of smokers I tend to not try to sit outside areas where they allow smoking. However, that is not possible all the times.

This sounded reasonable back in the 80s when anti's requested the first smoking ban on short trip plane rides.

Then it wasn't just short trip plane rides - it was all planes. Even planes from other countries were banned from using a US airport if they allowed smoking.

Well when it gets to that point then you might have an argument. However, now you don't. What is being proposed is reasonable since your smoking physically encroaches others personal area.

I suggest you continue holding your breath as you pass by smokers.

You can suggest what you want and I will suggest that you get yourself a nice little bubble so you can smoke all you want while these laws continue being implemented across the US.

I love how smokers have no problem in forcing others to be physically violated by their smoke, but I'm curious if non smokers started to fight back with vinegar filled spray bottles what they would think?

Get over yourself! Nobody believes anti-smokers anymore -

Haha, said no educated person ever.

In addition, the fact that anti smoking bans continue to be implemented suggest the opposite.

You want to smoke around people in tight places, get yourself a bubble.

a reply to: interupt42

If you want to encroach in the last few places where smoking is accomodated, then YOU get yourself a bubble.

Anti-smoking has a four-hundred year history.

Far from just spraying smokers with vinegar - smokers have been summarily executed, their noses slit and molten lead poured down their throat.

You think you got something new and fantastic here.

This program of anti-smoking by slow-motion prohibition was a program first implemented by Hitler. He was also the first to enlist scientists to find evidence of the health of smoking and to coin the phrase second-hand smoke!

Guess what happened when Hitler committed suicide? The people in the bunker with him lit up a smoke immediatly after his death! The smoking rate in the population of Germany soared higher than the smoking rate of any other European country.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the United States - at the same time period as alcohol prohibition, Lucille Gaston Page lead the tobacco prohibition movement. She brought about a ban on the sale of tobacco in 17 of the United States! She was so widely successful that she felt confident enough to make a run for the presidency. She died of throat cancer!

en.wikipedia.org...


If you want to know the future - look to history!

I am not basing my prediction on hope - I am looking to history. The current anti-smoking movement will die a timely death like every one before it!

Read something not provided by anti-smoking campaigners - I suggest you try reading comments in the newspaper stories about anti-smoking and see how many people, even non-smokers, are fed up with it. Then try reading how funding is decreasing and being cut-off for anti-smokers. These people are in it for the money. Anti-smoking truly got its start with funding from the Johnson Foundation, right after Johnson Pharmaceutical got into the business of providing alternate nicotene in the form of patches, gummies, lozenges and sprays.

With the advent of e-cigarettes, the market that was formerly worth 2 billion dollars to the Big Pharma started dropping off a cliff. Big Pharma is losing its interest in the anti-smoking movement and is turning its eyes to anti-obesity instead.

Governments misused the funds from the Master Settlement Agreement and is now in debt because of tabacco bonds. Tobacco taxes are going down because of the black market. As a result, funding is being cut for the anti-tobacco lobby groups (aka fake charities).

The higher up anti-tabacco lobbiests are already jumping ship to continue their rip-offs in the anti-obesity movement.

All it takes now is for some "hero" to run for office on the premise that they will fight the nanny state on behalf of the people. This has already happened in the UK

Nigel Farage and the UKIP party

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

The rise of UKIP

blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

They were the fringe, fruit-cake party - now they look set to be in positions of power within the government.

Other fringe parties in other countries have already taken note of the Rise of UKIP and are following their lead. And they are upsetting elections all over Europe!

People are absolutely fed up with control freak Puritans (like you!)

Tired of Control Freaks
Tired of Control

a reply to: interupt42

I think some of the people in this thread are the people I see stopped at red lights. A moron driving their junker with a baby strapped in the front seat, windows rolled up, smoking away without a care in the world.

Of the 50 largest cities in the US, 30 have banned indoor smoking in public places. Every year I see a new crop of 21 year olds come into the bar, each year less and less smoke. Vape has helped a lot.

If there is one thing worse than big government it's big tobacco.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Wow, you really need a cig.

No matter how you try to spin the issue it boils down to courtesy to others. The fact of the matter is that your smoking PHYSICALLY effects others but because you are selfish you don't care.

Banning smoking in certain areas is not going to lead to a Hitler regime. What is going to lead to a Hitler Regime is people as yourself frivolously preoccupying themselves and fighting for the right to infringe in others physical space while allowing more important issues to be overlooked.

Its NOT unreasonable to ask people to NOT PHYSICALLY infringe in a another persons personal space.

I'm for small gov't and lean towards libertarian principles. However, even libertarians believe in freedom as long as it DOESN’T infringe in the rights of others. Your Smoke physically infringes on the right of others.

a reply to: RammerJammer

Totally agree with you. Its amazing how addicted these people are that they overlook all common decency to the point of effecting children.

What is ridiculous is seeing people just out of surgery forced so many feet away from the hospital in the rain or snow.

There used to be smoking room with fans.

The restaurants, bars, and common rooms can use fans and you know, TECHNOLOGY, that has existed for decades, and probably its even better and more efficient today.

PERIOD.

So don't support any of these bans. Even in a bar, there can be a smoking section with fans. When I say fans, I mean a air purification system. That word is a shortcut.

a reply to: kosmicjack

Yeah. Bummer.

a reply to: RammerJammer

Well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it! I see Big Tobacco as a supplier of tobacco for those people who wish to purchase it.

The anti-smokers have been attacking Big Tobacco for 40 years. They claimed that Big Tobacco was "luring" kids with advertising.

Advertising was banned (limited in United States) from advertising, sponsoring sports events, and in general from having anything to do with kids. This has spread right down to hiding packs of cigarettes behind displays.

Guess what - kids still start smoking. So maybe its not Big Tobacco???

Anti-smokers have loved to portray themselves as David fighting Goliath to protect the children. It was a marketing ploy and it worked. But in reality, with the amount of money spent on anti-tobacco, the backing of both Big Pharma and the government, its a fight of Goliath against a blind-folded, hand-cuffed David.

Quit blaming Big Tobacco!!! I smoke because I choose to! Big tobacco is merely the supplier that I choose to use.

Nice portrayal of smokers there. Do you really think it represents all smokers or that there are no - smokers who are bad parents????

Just like all black people are lazy, bad parents, criminals and are sucking on the tit of the taxpayers, all muslims are terrorists, it completely follows that all smokers are as you portray them - uneducated, dirty, stinking, bad parents, coarse crude and uncaring of anyone's health?

All non-smokers are, of course, educated, good parents, hard-working, considerate, clean, sweet-smelling and healthy. They only peaceful deaths in their sleep with no apparent suffering whatsoever and never, ever get diseases like cancer!


Ho hum - just another marketing ploy! It was also used by Hitler against the jews.

Tired of Control Freaks