Roswell Smoking Ordinance...( Personal Rights ) [Archive]

mfish

02-12-2009, 03:05 PM

Sonnycrockett: That's why I stated "IN PART" ... the DUI laws are really killing the bars, too.
FYI: The city's ordinance is actually much more harsh than the state's, and was in place before the state law passed. Most restaurants and bars outside of Roswell can operate within the guidelines of the state law, while in Roswell, if you're walking down Main Street smoking a cigarette, you are technically breaking the local ordinance. Ain't Nazism grand?

Scott: I'm really tired of having to explain freedom of CHOICE to closed minded folks, but heck - I've been doing it for years so one more attempt is worthy ... If you don't like the color of the walls in a restaurant, you probably won't eat there. If you don't like the food they serve, you probably won't eat there. If you think their prices are too high, you probably won't eat there. And if they CHOOSE to allow smokers to enjoy a cigarette after their meal, and the mere presence of smoke gives you "unpeaceful" thoughts, then you'll most likely find another place to eat, too. And, those are ALL your choices. Ain't this a great country what with all that freedom ... oh, wait - unless you happen to be one of the smokers ... then of course, you're treated like a secondhand citizen because somebody sold the fallacy of the dangers of secondhand smoke as well or better than Al Gore has sold the dangers of global warming - um, "climate change" ... or, whatever he's calling it today ...

By the way - if you don't like a certain fragrance of perfume, and the table next to you is reeking from that fragrance, do you also throw a hissy fit and demand to be allowed to eat "in peace," or do you just tolerate it ...? Actually I have been in that situation and have asked to be moved to another table - and was accommodated by the staff. And by the way, if the entire joint stunk of that particular fragrance (old ladies tend wear it - I liken it to a mixture of cat urine and potent rosewater), I'd LEAVE and CHOOSE another dining place. See how easy that is? Exercise YOUR right to choose and allow others to do so as well. What a great country this used to be before all the whiney bitches in the world got it in their heads that they could dictate behavioral patterns of others ...

SonnyCrockett

02-12-2009, 03:11 PM

really DUI is killing the bars ?... Well thank GOD a certain Officer at RPD had 113 DUI arrests and convictions last year.. I would hate one of my loved ones to be killed by someone who thinks that drinking a 12 pack and driving home is fun

Daisy

02-12-2009, 03:19 PM

What a great country this used to be before all the whiney bitches in the world got it in their heads that they could dictate behavioral patterns of others ...

AMEN! I especially liked the 'whiney bitches' part.....;).......I, too, am sick and tired of them.

mfish

02-12-2009, 03:23 PM

Sonnycrockett: I couldn't agree with you more.

However, there's a difference between drinking a twelve pack or six pack and driving an auto, than in having a beer or two (or even four, over the course of an evening) and then driving an auto. The NEW laws make you DUI after one or two beers.

Of those 113 DUI arrests, I'd be curious as to the rest of the stats:

How many were barely over the limit, how many were grossly over the limit, and here's the real kicker: how many were repeat offenders?

The "laws" are only as good as the enforcement of said laws - there are far too many repeat offenders on the roads and the RPD or any other law enforcement agency has little control of that. That one falls on the judges and the attorneys.

SonnyCrockett

02-12-2009, 03:32 PM

Yep you are right..

Body weight and food has also something to do with it.. Eat and drink 4 beers is different than just drinking the 4 beers on an empty stomach.. I don't disagree..

mfish

02-12-2009, 03:38 PM

OK - then you understand my point when I say the DUI laws are killing the bar business.

People simply aren't going to bars any more, because if they have a cocktail or two, and get pulled over by the officer who happens to be stationed in the street out front because the parking lot is full (:naughty:) so the officer can score some major arrests for the night, their lives are potentially ruined by .08% of alcohol in their system.

There's a level of overzealousness that needs to be re-thought in my humble opinion - and a level of good common sense and judgment on the part of the officer on the scene, too.
But MADD is a powerful lobbying group...

saw

02-12-2009, 07:11 PM

In my opinion, if you have private business you should be able to post a sign on your front door that you serve nothing but good looking female adult redheads and can serve or sell anything that is a legal item.

The city, state , and the federal goverment should not have anything to say about it unless they are providing you bucks for your business.

The smoking was just the first step to social engineering and much more is headed our way. If you want your businees to be no-smoking, just make it a no-smoking establishment.

Myself, I wish they would mandate a children's section in the eating places and that children had to be on a leash if not well behaved.

Nothing like spending $50.00 for supper and two little wild indians running around screaming and crying.

I know of three different mom and pop eateries that closed their doors after the smoking ordinance went into effect here in Roswell and it was because of the ordinance.

I will take smoking anytime, most of those of folks are considerate.

mfish

02-12-2009, 07:53 PM

Yep - I have the ability to make up my OWN mind as to what places I choose to frequent - or not. Those decisions are made with many considerations taken into mind - or sometimes, I simply don't like the place and never return.

And a good business person will ACCOMMODATE as many patrons as possible, by taking everyone's desires into account - setting up separate sections for smokers and non-smokers alike, and installing state-of-the-art HVAC systems ... but THAT wasn't even enough for the whiney bitches - they wanted complete smoking bans in place so they could sit in pious arrogance knowing they just made someone else's life a bit more miserable because of their demanding nature, and not even realizing that the business owner was the one who actually suffered.

Wanna real funny story? The Variety is also non-smoking, and the argument was actually made (by a city councilor) that some of their wives wanted to go out occasionally and not come home smelling like smoke ... the response was, "oh really? And how many times have these council wives even been inside the Variety?" Can't you just imagine Henderson's, or Espinoza's wife with a cocktail in one hand and pool cue in the other ... at the VARIETY????

And, I certainly see the logic in controlling wild children with leashes - even muzzles - or segregating wild, ill-behaved children - if their parents can't control them then they either need to leave and take the monsters home, or allow the business to put them away in a room with a drain in the middle of the floor so the room can be easily hosed down when the brats leave.

There's NOTHING like losing your appetite because some bratty, snot-nosed kid just dumped his mixture of jello and masked potatoes all over the floor next to your table ... after crumbling a dozen packets of crackers into the mix ...

Daisy

02-13-2009, 07:12 AM

Myself, I wish they would mandate a children's section in the eating places and that children had to be on a leash if not well behaved.

Yeah, I try to make a point of complimenting parents with well behaved kids at restaurants. It lets them know their efforts are appreciated. We got lots of compliments from strangers when our children were little and now we pass it on.

The city, state , and the federal goverment should not have anything to say about it unless they are providing you bucks for your business.

That's exactly why you don't want the gov't (any gov't) providing you with bucks for your business - then they have the right to tell you how to do business and we all know how good they are at running things.......:pinch:

The smoking ordinance should be done away with - maybe someday, we'll get people in the city gov't who understand what freedom is all about.

kralspaces

02-13-2009, 09:11 AM

Fine. Blame the ordinance or state law. That place needed an extreme makeover and my wife and I discussed that several times in making it a classy 'bar' environment. I was in there many times after work last summer to talk to Dick about work jobs and there was always smoking. Only on Friday and Saturday did they enforce the no smoking ban because of the crowds. Sometimes we don't like the laws that are imposed on us, but we do have to adjust to make life work again. As I said in prior post, if Obama won the election I was going to implement business plan 'B'. Well, I am now working from that plan. The same thing applies to Bud's. It was time to change.

Daisy

02-13-2009, 09:23 AM

I, myself, never blamed Bud's closing on the ordinance - I don't give a rat's behind why it closed. I just despise the smoking ordinance. Period!

I was in there many times after work last summer to talk to Dick about work jobs and there was always smoking.

Good for them - sometimes, when bad laws are imposed on us, we have to decide to go against them. If we choose to do that and get caught and have to pay a fine or whatever............so be it.

Scott

02-13-2009, 09:28 AM

Fish I hear all your arguments and they are good ones. However, I still like the smoking ban. What about my freedom to go into one of Roswell's 10 restaurants and enjoy dinner without my asthmatic wife fearing she will have an attack and ruin our dinner? It's not like we have so many restaurants in Roswell that we can simply choose to eat elsewhere.

How do you figure it is against the law in Roswell to walk down the street smoking a cigarette? Do you really think someone is going to take enforcement action because someone walks by an entrance to a business smoking a cigarette? I doubt it.

Personally, I think Buds is a hell hole and I am thrilled to see it close.

I do not disagree that there could be seperate smoking and non-smoking sealed rooms with appropriate ventilation systems. How could one enforce that? Everybody you talk to will give you a different definition of what an approved ventalation system is. Plus the business owners would complain they could not afford such expensive equipment, etc.

As far as your comment regarding brat children in restaurants. I suppose you could simply choose to take your business elsewhere. Or we could write another law.

I will give you this though. What is the deal with all these people taking their children to these nice establishments? I never underestood that. 1st of all kids don't eat anyway so why order them anything off the Children's menu. 2nd, isn't the point of going out for an evening to get away from the kids for a night? Personally, I don't have the kind of money to have my children ruin my meal out that I get once in a great while and I darn sure don't want them ruining someone else's meal either.

mfish

02-13-2009, 09:33 AM

"That place needed an extreme makeover and my wife and I discussed that several times in making it a classy 'bar' environment."

Kral. Have you ever been to the Little Valley Club in Dexter? Ever been to Little Bear in Evergreen, CO? How about a Dick's Last Resort? Ever been to any of their locations (there's one in Dallas that's especially interesting)? Ever been to a Carlos & Charlie's?

My point is this - not everyone expects or demands a "classy 'bar' environment," and in fact many "joints" do just fine because that's exactly what they are.

Bud's survived as Bud's for over thirty years. It was what it was. Sure, the place needed some upgrades (electrical, plumbing) - but the charm of Bud's was that it was in fact a juke joint roadhouse dive (complete with a disco ball saddle!), and everyone who went there seemed to be fine with that.

mfish

02-13-2009, 09:44 AM

"What about my freedom to go into one of Roswell's 10 restaurants and enjoy dinner without my asthmatic wife fearing she will have an attack and ruin our dinner? It's not like we have so many restaurants in Roswell that we can simply choose to eat elsewhere."

First of all, that's not a freedom - that's a choice.

You can also cook at home and be absolutely SURE your wife's asthma won't be affected - as long as you keep her upwind of the grill ... if the wind shifts, you'll have to sue the charcoal company, I guess ... demanding smoke-free briquets...

If your wife has special needs or has a disability, then you have to take those needs or that disability into account when planning activities - and choose according to her ability to cope with your choices. One doesn't expect to climb up to the top of the spring at Sitting Bull Falls if one is parapalegic, for instance.

To DEMAND - through legislation - that businesses accommodate your wife while alienating a different segment of their clientele is selfish, don't you think?

However, over the years most restaurants have recognized that the need for smoking sections diminished - and many went smoke - free ALL ON THEIR OWN. They did this without being forced into it by a segment of the population who felt everyone ELSE needed to conform to their lifestyles...

kralspaces

02-14-2009, 06:51 AM

[I]
Bud's survived as Bud's for over thirty years. It was what it was. Sure, the place needed some upgrades (electrical, plumbing) - but the charm of Bud's was that it was in fact a juke joint roadhouse dive (complete with a disco ball saddle!), and everyone who went there seemed to be fine with that.

One man's 'charm' is another man's eye sore. Curb appeal is the worst on N Main from the signage, to the chip paint, to the pot hole rutted parking lot, to the unkept landscape, etc. and that is only the out side. But then again, that's not why Bud's is closing - it's the smoking ordinance.

mfish

02-14-2009, 08:46 AM

Kral, once again you have misread the article posted, evidently.
The OWNERS of Bud's listed the smoking ordinance as ONE of the reasons they're closing - they listed needed repairs as another. And, the much more strict DUI laws as yet another.

saw

02-14-2009, 05:24 PM

During my battles about the smoking ordinance I got to meet serval little mom and pop eating joints.

One was a little Mexican place that could seat maybe 35 folks at one time. It had a drive thru window and he delivered burritas to some of the business places.

In the morning there would be a group of old Hispanic (about 50 total) men gather to spend the morning, drink some coffee, and maybe have something to eat. All of these old gentlemen smoked and talked of the old days. They did no one any harm. This was their country club.

The smoking ordinance ran them all off. The revenue that they produced was only about $250.00 per day.

But that loss of revenue shut down that little place down. I think about it often and wonder where all the old men went.

The state ordinance allows smoking in private clubs, private functions, and on patios. Why the city will not adopt the state ordinance is a big question to me.

kralspaces

02-15-2009, 05:47 AM

saw,

the question for me would be: Has anyone even approached City Council and/or Committees and 'ask' for the ordinance to be removed?

Fish,

I’m being sarcastic. The thread focused on the smoking ordinance as the primary reason for the closure The Cirlce K killed their retail business. They have been losing money for a long time and didn't adjust to new market opportunities, ordinance or no ordinance. You being a smoker, I can understand your initial focus on the smoking ordinance. The building will be hard to rent or sell because it is saturated with smoke. Even an ozone shock treatment won't help. The best thing now is to implode it.

saw

02-15-2009, 06:26 PM

Kral: I believe the smoking war started before you came here.

There were meetings with the City's committee prior to the ordinance being passed, and all of them were standing room only. The night the ordinance was passed there was standing room only clear out into the hall.

The council members had already made up their minds and voted: the ordinance should include bars, private clubs, private functions, and no smoking on a patio. (This was a Henderson idea; he had lunch at a place in Las Cruces and someone went out on the patio and he saw a wiff of smoke come through the open door.) The council also declared a no smoking area within 10 feet of a doorway as long as the doorway did not go onto a patio.

They let some of us speak as long as we kept it under three minutes apiece.

They had an out-of-town crew from the State health department that told us 40,000 people die each year from second-hand smoke. Those people got a lot more than 3 minutes apiece. Later I challenged that number and they had to back off of their claim since it was unsubstantiated other than a computer generated number. If there was in fact proof that second-hand smoke causes death, our court system would be clogged with lawsuits. That was not the case as there had never been a prevailing lawsuit proving second-hand smoke causes death.

The Citizens' Rights Committee met with a lawyer and decided that if we could get on the agenda at the next meeting, then we could present our case.

Well, we (Citizens' Rights Committee) got on the agenda and about 50 of us showed up planning to ask for a thirty day delay before the ordinance was to go into effect.

This would give us time to present our case and work out some sort of deal that would cause the least amount of harm and still make the non-smokers happy. Like providing adequately ventilated smoking areas in the larger eating places, etc. You could tell that most of the Councilmen had not read their agendas, and we were a big surprise.

The meeting started and the first order of business was Henderson making a motion to remove us from the agenda, and Montieth seconded it. A vote was taken and five of the nine Councilmen present voted to take us off the agenda. One of our allies was not at the meeting.

Then Mayor Owens chewed us all out and told us to never come back to the council with this issue. He said "They had decided and there was nothing we could do about it."

We sued and it took about a year before the City ran the Citizens' Rights Committee out of money. The case never got to court.

When Sam Lagrone ran for mayor he told us if the State passed a no-smoking ordinance he would be in favor of changing the City's to match the State. Many of us supported him.

I talked to him after the State enacted the no-smoking ordinance and he said that he did not want to stir up anything and it would be best if nothing was done, so nothing was done.

Kral: If you have any suggestions, I would sure like to hear them.

The State's ordinance is the more reasonable of the two.

mfish

02-15-2009, 06:57 PM

Saw, and even before that, there had been attempts to get a smoking ordinance on the council agenda. Fortunately, we were able to nip it in the bud with that set of councilors and mayor (Jennings). At that time - the city council and the chamber actually recognized the sanctity of allowing a private business the latitude of operating as they saw fit.

The current smoking ordinance in Roswell passed shortly after I left town ...

kralspaces

02-16-2009, 03:48 PM

I have no opinion of the smoking ordinance. I am and always have been a non-smoker. I personally don't like being anywhere near smokers, whether they are smoking or not. They usually smell of smoke to my senses (3rd hand smoke). Weather the issue is a smoking ordinance or unfair taxes, the city council should not dismiss important concerns of the residents of the town they are responsible to serve.

PS: Here's what I found out today. Tucker sold Mama Tuckers to Todd Tivis and bought Bud's. Sam's bought Bud's liquor license for some very big bucks because they were operating with a temporary license. I talked with Andrew the reporter and I came away believing the reference to the smoking ordinance was a dig at City Council. This is what I suspected and why I even posted in the thread.

jsatterfield

02-16-2009, 04:19 PM

Kralspaces , with this new found attitude and with some of the BS you have been spewing around lately , your nose is sure getting brown, you wouldn’t be planning a run for a city councils seat would you? Just Asking.

kralspaces

02-16-2009, 10:12 PM

I have been asked many times, but the answer is NO! I have a bigger fish to fry first and I wouldn't be able to do it from CC.

However, I thought you guys wanted someone new on CC, so why the brown nose stuff.

mfish

03-06-2009, 05:38 AM

http://roswell-record.com/main.asp?SectionID=57&SubSectionID=194&ArticleID=40083&TM=27160.43

The above letter to the editor brings up some good points (again), but I think the writer might not be from Roswell.

First, he mentions "real bars." Roswell only has one left (The Variety) - he also mentioned retired snow plow drivers ...

But this is what came to mind when I read his letter: Do you realize the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has to figure out how to get about 20 million more people smoking cigarettes in order to pay for S-CHIP legislation that is supposed to be funded through tobacco taxes ...?

I wonder how the Smoking Nazis feel about that?

Zoidberg

03-06-2009, 08:12 AM

http://roswell-record.com/main.asp?SectionID=57&SubSectionID=194&ArticleID=40083&TM=27160.43
First, he mentions "real bars." Roswell only has one left (The Variety) - he also mentioned retired snow plow drivers ...

I didn't realize Geraldine was a man's name. If it's a pseudonym, it definitely betrays an interesting alter ego.

mfish

03-06-2009, 03:24 PM

So sue me ... I forgot the writer's name by the time I posted the link ... geesh. This is a tough crowd at times ...

Is that the ONLY complaint you have regarding my post? I can live with that if it is ...

mfish

05-01-2009, 07:11 AM

According to health officials, the FLU kills 30 - 35,000 people every YEAR (documented).
According to trumped - up pulled-out-of-the-air claims, secondhand smoke might be linked to some deaths every year (key word: MIGHT). THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM.

So, I'm waiting for the always-health conscious City Council to adopt a very important ordinance:

If anyone coughs, sneezes, or blows their nose in public, I expect the ordinance to allow the immediate removal from the premises, and possible quarrantine of that person until such time as proper tests can be run to determine if the person is indeed a health risk.

Based on the mountains of logic the council has exhibited in the past when determining the health and well-being of the public, I expect this ordinance to fly through committee and be voted into law unanimously within a very short time period.

Daisy

05-01-2009, 07:25 AM

Uh huh - and they could also put cameras in all bathrooms to make sure everyone washes their hands, cuz heaven knows how many germs are spread by dirty hands!! They could have a big fine attached to the coughing, sneezing, blowing your nose, not washing your hands ordinance, too. Mo' money for the coffers.

Sad, how many people don't think the smoking ordinance is just as ridiculous as what we just made up. Political correctness and brainwashing at it's best. :no3:

Scott

05-01-2009, 08:56 AM

They should just make smoking illegal altogether. It would simplify things.

Daisy

05-01-2009, 09:12 AM

Please tell me that was just a little joke...............:cool:

Scott

05-01-2009, 09:46 AM

Please tell me that was just a little joke...............:cool:

:smk1:
:smk3:

jsatterfield

05-01-2009, 10:57 AM

What about Alcohol, tobacco, and Firearms, Scott?? I say let’s go after Race cars also because they kill people, pollute the air, waste fuel, and make too much noise. That reminds me of a T-shirt I seen, “ATF” Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, that should be the name of a store, not a government agency. The point is just because you don’t like cigarette smoke doesn’t mean that people that do don’t have the right to smoke them. 20 months smoke free for me.:shoot::smk1:

PiscesLady1951

05-02-2009, 10:13 PM

I feel as much as smokers are taxed, they should -at least- get the respect of decent public places to smoke, a vented (inside) room, places where people dont have to stand out in the freezing cold or high heat, especially in bars and those with disabilities that have to go outside and stand. To begin with, children are not allowed in these establishments, they should have a smoking/non smoking section for ALL to enjoy Roswell's businesses, after all- the smokers certainly PAY enough in taxes & the people sure dont complain about the money that rolls in they collect.
These people surely LOVE the tax money they get, the least they could do is 'give' the smokers decent places to light up! We sure DONT hear them complain about ALL the tax money they're raking in!!!!

Neil

05-03-2009, 09:36 AM

They should just make smoking illegal altogether. It would simplify things.

Have to disagree there.
We would see the drug cartels expanding into smuggling tobacco from Canada. And think of all the social programs funded by tobacco tax. They'll be looking at your paycheck to make up for the lost funding.

zbratkat

05-03-2009, 10:16 AM

I feel as much as smokers are taxed, they should -at least- get the respect of decent public places to smoke,

Smokers are taxed well below what taxpayers like you and me pay for the healthcare of smoking-related illnesses. Even with the newest taxes, the amount collected now does not touch what the cost of these illnesses come to.

a vented (inside) room, places where people dont have to stand out in the freezing cold or high heat, especially in bars and those with disabilities that have to go outside and stand.

And yet what about those with breathing disabilities that make it impossible to breathe in the presence of the chemicals that second-hand smoke puts out?

There are more than 4,000 toxins created from second-hand smoke. It is these toxins which affect those with breathing disorders, not the smell of the smoke itself. So people with breathing disabilities are less important than those with other disabilities that feel they have a 'right' to smoke, affecting those around them who have chosen not to smoke, whether by breathing disability or by desire for a healthier life without the damage being done to their lungs. When someone makes this choice, they have a right not to be affected by someone else's choices.

To begin with, children are not allowed in these establishments, they should have a smoking/non smoking section for ALL to enjoy Roswell's businesses,

Non-smoking sections within an establishment of a smoking environment do nothing to curtail the chemicals/toxins that attach themselves to walls, floors, clothes, furniture, wafting through the air until it lands on a surface or is breathed directly into the lungs. It requires a completely different ventillation system and separate buildings to be protected from the dangers of second-hand smoke.

the smokers certainly PAY enough in taxes & the people sure dont complain about the money that rolls in they collect.

Again, there is no money 'rolling' in, as it takes more taxpayer money to pay the healthcare cost of smoking-related illnesses from first-hand AND second-hand smoke than what is collected from the sales of tobacco products.

These people surely LOVE the tax money they get, the least they could do is 'give' the smokers decent places to light up! We sure DONT hear them complain about ALL the tax money they're raking in!!!!

No one is responsible for giving smokers a decent place to light up. This is the point where businesses have a right to provide a service, not what you suggest. It is the responsibility of a business to protect the health and public safety of its patrons.

You wouldn't want to go to a restaurant and have someone serve you that has been to the bathroom and neglected to wash their hands after they wipe their bottom, would you? There are laws in place for that - to protect us from dangerous illnesses. It is the same for smoking laws.

Smokers are responsible for providing their own decent place to light up - in their car or home in UNSHARED airspace from children whose lives we are bound to protect.

These laws are also in place to protect employees, not just patrons. Every American has the right to a safe work environment and every American has the right to apply for any job available without discrimination of a disability, including heart, lung or any other disorder.

zbratkat

05-03-2009, 10:20 AM

...The point is just because you don’t like cigarette smoke doesn’t mean that people that do don’t have the right to smoke them. 20 months smoke free for me.:shoot::smk1:

*smiles* It isn't about not 'liking' cigarette smoke, my friend. See previous post.

Congrats on being smoke-free! It has been four years for me. It's not easy to quit.

zbratkat

05-03-2009, 10:38 AM

...THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM.

The Surgeon General of the United States has made a statement directly opposing what you claim. Besides the EPA, CDC, etc., would you believe the tobacco company giant, Phillip Morris, aka Altria? They published their own scientific findings that claim scientifically that second-hand smoke kills. They claim that crib death is connected to it. They claim cancer and heart problems are sometimes due to second-hand smoke. Are you saying that these tobacco companies are lying to us now as well?

Altria was forced into providing these scientific findings as a result of the Tobacco Settlement. After lawsuits proved they had the information, yet decieved, lied and hid the information for many, many years, targeting young people for their new smoking customers to replace the ones who were dying from it, the best thing they could do is provide the information, knowing the vast majority would never know about it, yet alleviating the ability for new lawsuits claiming the customer was not given the information of smoking harms and dangers.

- by Phillip Morris
PM USA (Phillip Morris USA) agrees with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases in smokers. Smokers are far more likely to develop serious diseases, like lung cancer, than non-smokers. There is no safe cigarette.

These have been, and continue to be, the messages of the U.S. Surgeon General and public health authorities worldwide. Smokers and potential smokers should rely on these messages when deciding whether or not to smoke.

Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

Not one manufacturer would put this type of negative promotion on their own website about their product. Unless...

http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/cms/Products/Cigarettes/Health_Issues/default.aspx

Swadlo

05-03-2009, 12:39 PM

jsatterfield

05-03-2009, 01:59 PM

And yet what about those with breathing disabilities that make it impossible to breathe in the presence of the chemicals that second-hand smoke puts out?

zbratkat, Spoken like a true liberal, let big government decide what is best for People, Take away a business owners right to decide what’s best for his/her own business. The way I see it I have the ability to decide if I want to go into a place of business that allow smoking or not, I say show me one death certificate that shows cause of death from , “Second hand smoke”.:smk1:

KiraSonne

05-03-2009, 02:06 PM

Talk about folks with breathing problems, Have you guys ever run into a woman with enough perfume on to float a battleship. That bothers me worse than cigarette smoke...Swadlo

Yikes, that reminds me of two female colleagues I had in Germany. I didn't need to check the clock, I always new when work was over, because their clouds of newly applied perfume would melt my sinuses.

Kira

Daisy

05-03-2009, 03:55 PM

Every business owner should have the right to do what he wants about smoking in his or her establishment. Y'all remember, "rights"?? Those things we've been losing bit by bit for quite some time now?

If a customer doesn't want to enter that business because of what the OWNER does or does not do, so be it. They can do business elsewhere. That is their right as a customer.

It doesn't matter whether or not smoke is good or bad - what is important here is that government has intruded way too far into our private lives and businesses. If that doesn't bother people, it really should. If you stand idly by while other's rights are being taken away, no one will stand with you when it's your turn. And make no mistake, your turn will come.

jsatterfield

05-03-2009, 04:04 PM

Well said Daisy, let personal responsibility and common sense be restored to the American people. When will people understand that big government is not the answer to all their problems or complaints? But that big government is the problem.:torch::torch:

mfish

05-03-2009, 04:25 PM

..."The Surgeon General of the United States has made a statement directly opposing what you claim...."

Gee whiz - The "surgeon General?!?" Well then - whatever was I thinking ...!:pinch:

Please don't insult my intelligence with tirades poofed out by the "Surgeon General" ...

Again - There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT SECOND-HAND SMOKE IS HARMFUL AND KILLING PEOPLE.

ANY Airborne particulates can be "harmful" to certain people - and the air we breathe is FULL of particulates. Some folks are more "sensitive" than others.
I've seen people pass out because of a faint hint of bleach in the air - yet, that hint of bleach gave me comfort knowing that the place I was in practiced good health standards.

Using your "logic" brat, I guess every kid at Goddard should be sick with creeping crud from the alleged mold in the school - yet, it's actually been a rather small percentage of kids who have been "affected" by this alleged problem (NOTE: I am not taking a stance one way or the other on the "mold" issue - I believe they need to get to the bottom of that mystery once and for all).

Anti-smoking Nazis will believe anything anyone drains into their ears - only to regurgitate it on a public forum believing that they've learned the "truth" and can educate others. BALONEY.

SHOW ME THE DATA.

And please keep the "factoids" pulled out of some "Surgeon General's" rectum out of this unless they can be BACKED UP BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

saw

05-03-2009, 05:56 PM

I have went through a lot of data and none of it can prove that second hand smoke is a killer and the data that said that is was not a killer is very detailed and scientific. There is scientific evidence that smoking is not even the big killer that it has been accused of. (Nations with higher smoking rates and lower lung cancer rates)

A recent article in the RDR stated that non-smokers are costing the the nation a lot more for health care than smokers because they live longer by about five years on the average.

The business does not belong to the public. The owner should have the right to decide what goes on in that business and those that don't like can go someplace else.:smk1:

A non-smoker!

PiscesLady1951

05-03-2009, 10:49 PM

I'm getting responses as to my post- I think it may have been taken in the wrong way.
I'm not against smoking- I was making the statement WHY DONT smokers have rights??? while some are complaining, they sure dont mind getting the use of such HIGH taxes that is put upon smokers.
One email I received remarked that smoking should just be banned altogether & that would solve the problem...
would it???? you can ban smoking BUT what about EVERYTHING else in the world?? how about DRINKERS-
what about what we eat? the list could go on & on & on-
Everything these days is supposingly bad for us-
Why cant business owners decide what 'they' want in their establishments? Why not section off the smokers from the non-smokers BUT allow smoking in such places...
There are people out there that are alone & go out to be around people, one cant even enjoy a cup of coffee with a cigarette these days, one has to go 'outside'... who is to say someone might not put something harmful in your cup while you're having to go outside??
What's wrong with having a smoking & non-smoking section in a bar establishment? Smokers pay just as much as non-smokers do!!!

zbratkat

05-04-2009, 07:09 AM

And please keep the "factoids" pulled out of some "Surgeon General's" rectum out of this unless they can be BACKED UP BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

The 'factoids; I used were from Phillip Morris, not the Surgeon General. Maybe those who speak of rights should read it. SO it is a business' right to allow undercooked meat, food kept at any temperature and no one should HAVE to wash hands. Afterall, it is their business, right?

zbratkat

05-04-2009, 07:12 AM

What's wrong with having a smoking & non-smoking section in a bar establishment? Smokers pay just as much as non-smokers do!!!

I suppose you skipped the posts explaining what's wrong with that?

zbratkat

05-04-2009, 07:14 AM

A recent article in the RDR stated that non-smokers are costing the the nation a lot more for health care than smokers because they live longer by about five years on the average.

Please show me that article with the stats attached. DO you have any idea how much healthcare actually costs for smoking-related issues? 1/4 of the VA budget goes to smoking-related illnesses.

zbratkat

05-04-2009, 07:16 AM

let personal responsibility and common sense be restored to the American people.

Reading through this thread shows how much common sense or responsibility anyone has when proof is handed to those who refuse to see it. But that is typical for anyone who holds on to some notion that is neither correct nor ideologically sound.

zbratkat

05-04-2009, 07:18 AM

I say show me one death certificate that shows cause of death from , “Second hand smoke”.:smk1:

You make me giggle. That's a good thing. Honey, if a jaywalker walks out into the road and gets hit and killed by a car, the death certificate will surely NOT have 'stupidity' on the death certificate.

zbratkat

05-04-2009, 07:20 AM

Talk about folks with breathing problems, Have you guys ever run into a woman with enough perfume on to float a battleship. That bothers me worse than cigarette smoke. Do you think there will ever be a ban on perfume. That will really create a stink and an uproar.

The whole thing should be put to a PUBLIC VOTE, not left to a few people. Look at what is happening with our legislators now. Going to hell in a hand basket.

Take Care
Swadlo

You are right. Some people cannot handle perfums and such because of breathing difficulties, which is why most healthcare employers do not allow perfums and colognes to be worn to work when working close to patients.

Daisy

05-04-2009, 08:09 AM

SO it is a business' right to allow undercooked meat, food kept at any temperature and no one should HAVE to wash hands.

I believe this is what I said, "Every business owner should have the right to do what he wants about smoking in his or her establishment." Didn't mention meat or handwashing at all.

What's wrong with having a smoking & non-smoking section in a bar establishment? Smokers pay just as much as non-smokers do!!!

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, except to those who believe the government should be in our face all the time. Government should 'govern' the country, not be an intrusion in every aspect of our lives. Living entails many dangers and hazards - the government has no business trying to protect us from living. Man, I hope they never "discover" that sex is bad for our health!!!! :cool:

zbratkat

05-04-2009, 08:25 AM

I believe this is what I said, "Every business owner should have the right to do what he wants about smoking in his or her establishment." Didn't mention meat or handwashing at all.

Why should a business owner have the right to allow smoking if it's a health issue? It is the same as handwashing, which is what my comment was directed to, not your comment.

A few people do not believe that second-hand smoke is a health issue and believe that all scientific data is fabricated. Is this what you believe, Daisy? You appear to be intelligent and you enjoy knowing the truth of things. Most here do. So I ask you - do you believe what even Phillip Morris itself says about the dangers of smoking and second-hand smoke?

Daisy

05-04-2009, 08:42 AM

What I'm saying is that the government should not be dictating what a business owner does with his business or a private citizen does with his life when the proof is not there. Hell, even if the proof IS there - free people have a choice to go to an establishment or not.

I believe the tobacco companies will say and do most anything under extreme pressure by a very intrusive government. They don't want to be shut down completely.

Our medical 'experts' certainly don't know all there is to know - they are not gods. I'm sure most of us have known people who smoked up until the time they died at the ripe old age of 90 or above. We also know people who have died at a young age from different cancers when they never smoked, drank or did any fun stuff (;)) in their whole lives.

No one is going to live forever, nor should we want too. We should be able to pick our vices as a free people - as for second hand smoke, there is nothing wrong with allowing a business owner to choose what he will allow in HIS ESTABLISHMENT. Most would probably choose to have a separate room for smokers and that's fine. Customers can also choose - if they believe second hand smoke will kill them, they don't have to do business in those places that allow it.

IT SHOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL TO ALLOW SMOKING IN YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

By the way, I recently quit smoking, but I will defend people's right to do so forever.

zbratkat

05-04-2009, 08:56 AM

By the way, I recently quit smoking, but I will defend people's right to do so forever.

I quit four years ago and even when I did smoke, I never defended someone for affecting someone else negatively. Smokers do not have the right to affect another person with their choice. Their right to smoke stops at my nose before it gets to my lungs.

People have a right to smoke...yes. People do not have a right to affect another person with their right.

Daisy

05-04-2009, 09:24 AM

zbratkat

05-04-2009, 09:27 AM

As stated, before, it is the choice of each person to do business or not where smoking is allowed. If a business owner chooses to allow smoking, that should be his choice - there would be many other businesses who choose not to allow smoking and that's where those could go who don't like smoke. Everyone is accomodated and it's all good.

I personally despise the way the government and the politically correct police have made smokers out to be 'scum of the earth' and I also am disappointed that so many people have fallen for the party line rhetoric.

It is a total shame when nonsmokers act as if smokers are scum of the earth. It's a habit and an addiction. This does not equal scum.

However, for those smokers who do not give a rat's behind how their choice affects others in their vicinity is rather low on the scale for behavior, though.

saw

05-04-2009, 08:52 PM

zbratkat: You can find the newspaper article that you wanted on post 52 in the RDR 4/08/09 page A11.

Have you ever heard of the California Study? The ASC started this study back in about 1960. The University of California conducted the study and it was funded by tobacco tax. The study was carried out on 116,000+- people and ran for forty years. It was published in the British Medical Journal. It concluded that there was not any ill harm of second hand smoke except maybe in children less than two years old.

Then there was the "Sixteen City Study" conducted by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. They did studies in workplaces in sixteen cities in the USA and found that there was no ill effects from second hand smoke. This study was funded by the ACS and big tobacco.

I have yet to see one scientific study that concludes that second hand smoke does all the harm that the ACS claims. I think that the ACS made millions of bucks by keeping this issue alive. How else how have they been able to amass millions in real estate in the last few years?

I along with an environmental engineer took air samples before the smoking ordinance in the Elks Club, Peppers, and Farleys'. The test that we took at the corner of Main and College was by far the most harmful to humans. We even had a smoker set at the table smoking while we took the test in the bars.

I am not for smoking and don't smoke myself but I believe that a business owner should decide if smoking will be allowed and the only obligation he has to the public is to post a sign on the door that smoking is permitted. You mentioned undercooked meat, well I like mine rare and how bout those folks that like sushi and steak tarter. I understand that the sushi and steak tarter makes a lot of people very sick ever year. If you want your eggs raw, it is your choice.

What if you had a little bakery, zbratkat, and the city council decided that you could no longer sell any pastries because of the health issue. What would be your response?

A few facts to chew on: The USA slipped from #11 to #41 in the international rankings of life expectancy.
Japan has the longest life expectancy in the world.
Japan's cigarette consumption is 24% more per capita than the USA.
Japan has only 27% of the lung cancer deaths that the USA has per capita.
Out of the 16 top nations, 12 smoke more than the USA, but none have a higher lung cancer death rate per capita. The number of smokers in the USA has dropped 50% in 35 years. Why hasn't the lung cancer rates dropped dramatically?
The obesity rates in the US is ten times that of Japan per capita, four times that of Italy.
The US has 47% more motor vehicles per capita than Japan.

saw

05-04-2009, 09:09 PM

Swadlo

05-04-2009, 10:19 PM

The 'factoids; I used were from Phillip Morris, not the Surgeon General. Maybe those who speak of rights should read it. SO it is a business' right to allow undercooked meat, food kept at any temperature and no one should HAVE to wash hands. Afterall, it is their business, right?

zbratkat, just a question here, maybe you can answer it for me. Why the comparison between food and smoke. Sounds like if you don't like the answer, change the subject. Why?

Take Care
Swadlo

Daisy

05-05-2009, 07:05 AM

I think that Phillip Morris made a great legal move when they confessed that cigaretts are bad ju-ju. Now if anyone wants to sue , old Phillip can say I told you so. I told you that you should not smoke.

Aha - I had never thought of that angle!! It's a shame we have to be cunning enough to protect ourselves from the damage lawyers can do. saw, one of your favorite statements is totally correct - 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name. Make no mistake, the majority of lawyers do what they do for money - NOT to right wrongs or to help people.

zbratkat

05-05-2009, 09:21 AM

zbratkat, just a question here, maybe you can answer it for me. Why the comparison between food and smoke. Sounds like if you don't like the answer, change the subject. Why?

Take Care
Swadlo

The comparison was in reference to health issues and why health laws are in place, putting regulations on the food industry, for instance. Food temps and how our food is prepared, as well as the washing the hands bit, are good example.

I stand by solid, sound evidence from American Heart, American Cancer, American Lung, Centers For Disease Control, and Jeffrey Wygan, the pharmocologist who worked for Phillip Morris and had to be guarded by the Secret Service and FBI during Congressional Hearings on tobacco during the 90s.

Congress had the tobacco giant CEOs raise their right hands and swear that they had no knowledge that nicotine was addictive and had no knowledge that smoking was harmful to your health.

The Attorney General at the time had Jeffrey Wygan waiting in a warehouse under FBI protection to come testify before Congress with his notes and all scientific studies he had provided to the tobacco companies when he was employed by them.

Jeffrey had already told the CEOs of these tobacco companies that nocotine was addictive and deadly. The tobacco companies targeted children under the age of 14 in their marketing ploys to replace those dying from it, as well as those quitting.

Saw is right when he says that Phillip Morris made a great move in printing their information on the harms of tobacco. THey did it for the exact reason you suggest - to protect them from future lawsuits. They were not made to print that information in the tobacco settlement agreement.

zbratkat

05-05-2009, 09:36 AM

I looked up your studies and this is what I found by the organizations you claim. Here are some exerpts, as well as urls. Please provide the url and useful information for research with your claim.

Have you ever heard of the California Study? The ASC started this study back in about 1960. The University of California conducted the study and it was funded by tobacco tax. The study was carried out on 116,000+- people and ran for forty years. It was published in the British Medical Journal. It concluded that there was not any ill harm of second hand smoke except maybe in children less than two years old.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_
Cut down on cigarettes, and you cut down on cancer deaths. That's the good-news trend that's been taking shape in California since the late 1980s, according to "Reducing Smoking and Cancer in California: A Success Story," a report presented at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2001 Cancer Conference held in Atlanta.

Between 1988 and 1998 in California, the death rate for four specific cancers — lung, pancreatic, bladder, and oropharyngeal (including tonsils, soft palate, central pharynx, and base of tongue) — dropped significantly, says Bruce Leistikow, MD, principal investigator of the California study and adjunct associate professor at the University of California's School of Medicine in Davis.

California's overall cancer death rate dropped 12% in that same period, while the cancer death rate in 47 other states dropped only 4%. (Massachusetts and Arizona were excluded from the numbers contrasting the California cancer death rates with the nation because those two states are also home to aggressive anti-smoking campaigns.)

Leistikow's study found that the reductions in cancer mortality rates amounted to 4,000 California cancer deaths prevented in 1998 alone. The 10-year study also found a mortality gap with the rest of the nation: about 200,000 additional cancer deaths in the rest of the US during the study decade — deaths that would have been prevented had the nation's cancer rates matched California's.

Then there was the "Sixteen City Study" conducted by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. They did studies in workplaces in sixteen cities in the USA and found that there was no ill effects from second hand smoke. This study was funded by the ACS and big tobacco.

conducted by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Environmental Health Sciences Division, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California
http://www.ehponline.org/realfiles/members/1999/Suppl-2/329-340hammond/hammond-full.html

Furthermore, workplace concentrations are highly variable, and some concentrations are more than 10 times higher than the average home levels, which have been established to cause lung cancer, heart disease, and other adverse health effects. For the approximately 30% of workers exposed to ETS in the workplace but not in the home, workplace exposure is the principal source of ETS. Among those with home exposures, exposures at work may exceed those resulting from home. We conclude that a significant number of U.S. workers are exposed to hazardous levels of ETS. -- Environ Health Perspect 107(Suppl 2):329-340 (1999).

Since the mid-1980s, the conclusion that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) increases the risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers has been reached by a variety of agencies and government authorities including the U.S. Surgeon General, the National Research Council, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Daisy

05-05-2009, 10:22 AM

zbratkat

05-05-2009, 10:35 AM

Oh my GOSH, how can y'all possibly miss the whole point of this ordinance?

IT'S NOT ABOUT SMOKING HAZARDS - IT'S ABOUT CITIZEN RIGHTS.

People refuse to see what's right in front of their faces..........I'm done. :(

The ordinance addresses smoking hazards as the reason for this public health and safety law. The argument against the law is citizen's rights.

I once stood firmly on your side of the issue. I even got angry at times with whomever I was having the debate with. I look back and feel a lot of guilt over this very issue.

My oldest son, now almost 23, has asthma. He has had it since he was a little boy. I knew nothing about the harm of cigarette smoke to people with these breathing disorders, much less that the toxins in my cigarette smoke actually cause the asthma is those who do not already have it.

No one could possibly say for sure that he acquired asthma because of my smoking around him, but...

I now watch him struggle to breathe as he walks anywhere near an area where people are smoking or even in someone's house who has smoked (not just in the moment of entry). We can't even go to events such as Party on the River, parades, etc. - because people feel they have a 'right' to smoke in these public places.

So there ya' go. We choose not to go because he may die of an asthma attack if he encounters cigarette smoke. But we are forced to choose by a physical condition and useless laws that do not protect him on the very streets he pays taxes to support.

America - the land of the free, the home of the brave, and the almighty place of big business.

saw

05-05-2009, 12:05 PM

The California study as well as the sixteen cities study only addressed the issue of second hand smoke. I sure that you can locate them just as I did by searching. You might note that Roger Jenkens is quoted a number of times in you references. His group is the one that did the sixteen cities study as well as a bunch more. I have talked with Roger a number of times about the issue and have his opinions firsthand. As I understand it the ACS blocked the printing of the California study in the USA and five days before it was published in the BMJ, The ACS said the study was flawed. It had been going on for forty years and 5 days before being published they declared it flawed. Just how swift are those folks?

I noticed that the souces that you quoted were from California studies.

I wander if any of those sources can tell us while the smoking rate has dropped by 50% but lung cancer has dropped by only 4% nationwide except California at 17%. Also maybe they answer my questions about the Japanese, how they smoke more but have a lot less lung cancer than the USA. Could our automobiles have anything to do with it?

The last time I look at the OSHA rules, smoking was not illegal. Trying as hard as they could they could not prove that is was not a great hazard.

Was it the EDA that a judge threw out their case in court because the evidence that they presented was not based on facts. I think my friend Roger was one of the expert witnesses in that case.

Just some things to think about. You (Zbratkat) did tell me how you would feel about you not being not able to sell pastries

zbratkat

05-05-2009, 12:15 PM

I noticed that the souces that you quoted were from California studies.

I wander if any of those sources can tell us while the smoking rate has dropped by 50% but lung cancer has dropped by only 4% nationwide except California at 17%. Also maybe they answer my questions about the Japanese, how they smoke more but have a lot less lung cancer than the USA. Could our automobiles have anything to do with it?

The last time I look at the OSHA rules, smoking was not illegal. Trying as hard as they could they could not prove that is was not a great hazard.

Was it the EDA that a judge threw out their case in court because the evidence that they presented was not based on facts. I think my friend Roger was one of the expert witnesses in that case.

Just some things to think about. You (Zbratkat) did tell me how you would feel about you not being not able to sell pastries

Please provide URLs for your case studies. I cannot adequately answer any alleged stat you present unless you can provide a source.

Your question about pastries does not compute. Give me an example that qualifies as something remotely possible. In a case of eggs and health hazards, dangers, etc., I would operate under CDC/health guidelines.

But even then with government standards, that doesn't always mean a heck of a lot. There are no government standards for mold, yet look at what is happened and unfolding before your eyes right here.

saw

05-05-2009, 01:46 PM

Obesity is the nations number one health problem and pastries are part of the cause.

ACS claimed that 50,000 deaths are caused each year by second hand smoke. Where does that figure come from? How many deaths are caused by second hand smoke?

We know how many deaths are caused by auto accidents. How many deaths are caused by lung cancer?

Daisy

05-05-2009, 02:40 PM

C'mon y'all, the topic is Roswell Smoking Ordinance - I'm gonna have to start sending all posts that don't stay on that topic to the trash can. If you want to start a thread on the hazards of smoking compared to auto accidents, go for it. It would belong under 'Post Misc. Topics Here'. This is not the correct thread for it.

Fair warning!!

zbratkat

05-05-2009, 05:57 PM

Health Hazards, death stats, comparisons, etc. are ALL part of the smoking ordinance issue, daisy. It has been all brought out during the campaigns around the state in the last 10 years to get smoking ordinances. It took getting Albuquerque smoke-free to get the state law in place.

During all the testimony these past years, everything stated and discussed here in this thread is on topic - it is how and the whys that the ordinances were passed.

Daisy

05-05-2009, 06:19 PM

The owner should have the right to decide what goes on in that business and those that don't like can go someplace else.

I totally agree - the smoking ordinance is completely against the rights of free businessmen and should be taken off the books.

That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it................:smk3:

zbratkat

05-05-2009, 07:45 PM

I totally agree - the smoking ordinance is completely against the rights of free businessmen and should be taken off the books.

That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it................:smk3:

I would like for you to post a source here concerning the rights of free businessmen. Then we can all read and decide for ourselves if the smoking ordinance is against the rights of free businessmen.

mfish

05-06-2009, 07:44 AM

This is a perfect example of what the smoking nazis hope to accomplish with their silly laws and ordinances. DIVIDE AND CONQUER.

Listen - I'm reeeeeaaallly sorry your asthmatic son can't go to a street fair for fear of catching a whiff of cigarette smoke.

My friend who's confined to a wheelchair can't go to the bottom of the Grand Canyon, either. But he isn't demanding that the US Parks Services put a ramp to the bottom for him.

I know parents who have a child that is deathly allergic to peanuts, so they home school the lad, rather than FORCE ALL THE OTHER KIDS TO QUIT BRINGING PEANUT BUTTER SANDWICHES TO SCHOOL.

Accepting DISABILITY as a fact of life, and knowing there are LIMITATIONS to what one can and cannot do when faced with a disability is not a bad thing. It's actually using common sense as it should be used. When people who have disabilities - allergies to smoke, or peanut butter; or worse - decide that by golly, the REST OF THE WORLD NEEDS TO CHANGE TO ACCOMMODATE ME - we start down a slippery slope that leads to perdition.

Your personal challenges are not necessarily MY problems - I refuse to buy into the whole "it takes a village" BS and like to think we still have a level of common sense and personal responsibility left in our core.

Daisy

05-06-2009, 08:04 AM

Very well put, mfish. That's what I was talking about - when we decide it's okay for government to ban something we don't like, it won't be long before that same government bans something else, then something else and so on. That's a very bad road to travel down - happily allowing government to take away ANY rights is NOT a good thing.

That's why, in my opinion, this smoking ordinance has NOTHING to do with health hazards and everything to do with government control. And THAT'S what we should be afraid of, not a bit of smoke in the air. :smk2:

mfish

05-06-2009, 08:21 AM

As I stated in another thread (related to this one):

People who try to realign the world to suit their personal preferences are a dangerous bunch ...

zbratkat

05-06-2009, 10:00 AM

As I stated in another thread (related to this one):

People who try to realign the world to suit their personal preferences are a dangerous bunch ...

I stated in another thread (related to this one):
I see how things work around Talk Roswell. You, as a moderator, as well as your friends here, can post off topic and get nasty as well...but everything is kosher...but someone like myself who disagrees with the consensus around here and is debating over the topic and using side issues to bring out points, I get my posts moved, then more deleted because someone can't handle the truth.

I agree with many agenda here. I agree with many folk over many things. Just not this issue. And take a look at the behavior.

If you wish to remain blinded to proof and wish to use silly comparisons which do not relate, that is your perogative.

But when you begin using some sort of 'web power authority' over a website to censor information because it is directly in opposition to your beliefs, you are stepping into something other than American. It is the typical ploy of all dictators. Suppress away.

jsatterfield

05-06-2009, 10:44 AM

I would like for you to post a source here concerning the rights of free businessmen. Then we can all read and decide for ourselves if the smoking ordinance is against the rights of free businessmen.

I think it’s call the constitution and the Bill of Rights, those document that liberal leaning people seem to forget about that limits the power of the government from passing stupid and useless laws over free people of the united states, and allows people to decide what is best for them self and not the government. I could be wrong but I doubt it.:shoot::shoot:

mfish

05-06-2009, 10:49 AM

At the risk of being intolerably redundant, please refer to my response to zbracat's diatribe in the previous post zbracat referenced - it's in the smoking ordinance thread... and then apply that response to this as well.

Daisy

05-06-2009, 10:56 AM

As with every aspect of life, you just can't please everyone.......:no:

Just like, it wasn't enough that the council said people couldn't smoke inside private businesses. Then they said it had to be a certain distance away from entrance to the buildings. Isn't that how it went or am I wrong about that? It just seemed so ridiculous!!

mfish

05-06-2009, 02:29 PM

I think they stated "fifteen feet" from an entrance. That means that technically, one cannot legally smoke a cigarette walking down a Main Street sidewalk.

Yep that's your government at work ...

mfish

05-06-2009, 02:30 PM

But ya know - I BLAME THE BUSINESS OWNERS WHO LAID DOWN AND ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN AS WELL.

Zoidberg

05-06-2009, 03:06 PM

But ya know - I BLAME THE BUSINESS OWNERS WHO LAID DOWN AND ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN AS WELL.

Show me a business owner who thinks people smoking out front is good for their business and I'll show you your business owner who laid down.

Some hate smokers, some could care less.

67cj5

05-06-2009, 03:28 PM

Mfish don't be too hard on the business owners. They walk a fine line with their customers. If they come out strong for the smokers they alienate the non-smokers. Conversely, if they come out strong for the non-smokers they alienate the smokers. Either way they lose with one or the other. They are not politicians; they do not have to voice an opinion. Their main goal is to make everyone happy so that you buy their products. If you want to see what happens when you alienate half of your customer’s just look at the Boston Globe. Some times as a business it is best to stay out of the fray.

mfish

05-06-2009, 03:38 PM

Well, we could start with the restaurants that can't allow smoking on their patios, because it violates the "fifteen feet" rule ...

saw

05-06-2009, 08:35 PM

You can not even smoke at a private party if it is in a party room at a hotel. By law if you rented Billy Ray's (closed to the public)for a wedding party you are not allowed to smoke. You can smoke within 10' of the door of a cafe unless it is the door to the patio.

A motorcycle group had a convention at the Sally Port a couple of years and they were not allowed to smoke unless it was in their room, but no smoking in the meeting room. They were not a happy bunch of bikers.

You can't smoke in a private club. You can't smoke in your own business even if the public does not come into your business unless it is in your office and none of your employees object. You can't smoke in your own business even if all of your employee's smoke.

You can be convicted of a misdemenor for smoking which is more severe than driving 50 miles per hour down main street.

The state ordinance does not have such a stiff penalty and you can smoke at private clubs and private funtions. You can also smoke on patios.

If this does not step on private rights, I don't know what does.

By the way, Lee Rogers added that stiff penalty after the council passed the ordinance. I am told that the mayor used to smoke on the deck at the Pasta Cafe. (not a patio) They also smoke on the back porch at the Country Club.(not a patio) Mayor Sam said that they would adopt the state ordinance when it was passed but he got to much pressure from some of the good old boys/girls.

Sorry I put this in the wrong place, someone move me please.

randoman

05-12-2009, 09:20 AM

I have been a back seat member of this website for years now and finally decided to pipe up. While I agree with the fact that government intrusion into personal life isn't right, I must make one very valid point. Most smokers are very disrespectful of their actions. How many cigarrette butts do you see in gutters, outside building entrances, etc. It's as if throwing a cigarette butt is socially acceptable.

It's this lack of concern for our mutual environment as well as those smokers who could care less that their smoke lands right in the face of a nother person that give cause for governments to take action.

If free people cannot govern their actions, someone has to take a stance, in this case it's Roswell City government. If smokers would be more respectful of their habit by putting butts in receptacles, not flick them out the windows or in the front of doors and be so kind as to ask those around them first before they light up, this kind of government regulation wouldn't be necessary.

saw

05-12-2009, 11:23 AM

Again the no-smoking ordinance does not keep people from throwing their butts on the street nor does it prevent anyone from blowing smoke in your face. I wll try to post the meat of the ordinance tonight for you folks that want to know.

postmaster

05-12-2009, 04:28 PM

No drinking while driving doesn't keep people from tossing beer cans and bottles out of a window.....no littering doesn't prevent drink cups, candy wrappers from landing in the street either. Whereas there is not smoke involved in any of the infractions cited, people are still not abiding by the 'rules' and I doubt very seriously whether any member of the City Council or City staff give it another thought. Nope, the no smoking ban was personal and pushed through, IMO. I say let the business owners run their own businesses and let the city pay attention to their business. Just say NO to government interference, period. I personally am opposed to a government that is all things to all people.......that is nothing more than the fast-track to a country that is totally controlled by the government. :shoot:

mfish

05-12-2009, 09:04 PM

And from what I hear, the RPD has much better things to respond to than someone who lights up in a "non-smoking" environment.

Any guesses as to how many fines have been paid under the ordinance? Unless something has changed, the answer is ZERO.

saw

05-12-2009, 09:45 PM

First of all, a policeman has about a slim to no chance of catching anyone smoking. All a smoker has to do is lay the smoke down when he spots the cop. Since this ordinance only addresses tobacco and mary jane is now legal for medical purposes, what is the city going to do if you cut your tobacco with a little mary jane and claim it is for medical purposes.

To my knowledge there has been only one citation written in Roswell and it was for allowing someone to smoke in the bar on West Second Street. That ticket was torn up Monday morning before it got to court.

Steve Henderson has promised a crack down on the smokers but of course they do not have the officers that can enforce it.

Even the State ordinance has had only a few cases to go to court. One was that the owner of the bar refused to put up the no-smoking signs.

One other thing that I have noted is that a package of Bugle Tobacco does not have the Surgeons Generals warning on it. Somebody explain.

mfish

05-13-2009, 06:23 AM

My point exactly - yet another useless ordinance geared towards making certain people "think" the alleged leaders of the city are looking out for their good intentions, when in reality the ordiance does nothing but keep a certain segment of consumer (smokers) HOME and away from consuming at bars and restaurants. So the ordinance has probably COST the city revenue.
Good one.

mfish

05-19-2009, 06:46 AM

This letter to the editor (linked below) is an excellent example of "unintended consequences." The smoking nazis have pushed for even higher "sin taxes" on cigarettes to pay for health care for children (among other things), but the higher taxes are forcing more smokers to quit - which leaves a void in the funding that these higher taxes were supposed to support. So - once enough people quit smoking because of obscene pricing brought on by ridiculous taxes, who do YOU think is going to "get" to pay for the new programs ...?

This is also a great illustration of the great lie "no new taxes" told by your new POTUS when he was running for that job - cigarette taxes are typically more onerous on lower class and fixed income people than they are on "the rich" ... my, how duplicitious of him ... my, how hypocritical of the smoking nazis ...

http://roswell-record.com/main.asp?SectionID=57&SubSectionID=194&ArticleID=42633&TM=31157.9

Daisy

05-19-2009, 07:10 AM

So - once enough people quit smoking because of obscene pricing brought on by ridiculous taxes, who do YOU think is going to "get" to pay for the new programs ...?

Yep, now everyone will have the privilege of paying for those programs that only smokers got to pay for in the past. Lucky dogs!!

What people don't seem to understand about personal rights being taken away, is that sooner or later, an out of control government will get around to taking from everyone. When you see a fellow American being stripped of his rights, you should be outraged, because that same big government will come after you at some point. No one is exempt from a government gone wild.....:no:

John M. Cleary

05-19-2009, 07:11 AM

I can understand some one changing their habits due to market prices.

What I find amazing, is a person who Thanks, the nanny state for pricing them out of a habit, they have enjoyed for 45 years.

The removal of freedom of choice, is never a good thing.

Thanking the government, for taxing you into submission, is a sign of incredible weakness.

Daisy

05-19-2009, 07:22 AM

You're exactly right, John. That letter gave me a sick feeling in my stomach when I read it the other day.

What this country does NOT need is people thanking the government for controlling their lives. It's absolutely pitiful!

saw

05-19-2009, 11:37 AM

It it will be a good deal for the Apaches, they bump the price of a carton of cigs about $7.00, They are about $23.00 per carton now. Of course they don't pay any taxes.

roswelite

05-24-2009, 09:11 AM

If a person grew their own tobacco would they be arrested for conspiracy to avoid paying taxes?

It it will be a good deal for the Apaches, they bump the price of a carton of cigs about $7.00, They are about $23.00 per carton now. Of course they don't pay any taxes.

Zoidberg

05-26-2009, 06:36 AM

If a person grew their own tobacco would they be arrested for conspiracy to avoid paying taxes?

Actually, up until 2005, they'd qualify for federal subsidies.

I don't believe taxation comes into the picture until the retail sale is made.

It's actually quite a number of steps from crop harvest to point of use; most tobacco growers would face quite a challenge in doing it all themselves.

mfish

05-26-2009, 06:48 AM

If you cut out all the chemical additive stages, it's really quite simple. Grow the tobacco, harvest the tobacco, dry the tobacco, cut the tobacco, roll the tobacco...

Pot growers do it all the time.

Daisy

05-26-2009, 09:25 AM

At the risk of being called a pissy moderator, I'm gonna remind y'all that this thread is (supposed to be) about the Roswell Smoking Ordinance and how it affects personal rights.

I'd be glad to open a new thread called "Growing Tobacco and/or Weed - Anyone can do it!", if you wish to continue this discussion...........:p

Scott

11-30-2009, 06:54 AM

I second that motion... that smoke always drifted into the eating areas when people went in and out.

Nevermind the fact that it is ILLEGAL:smk1:

saw

11-30-2009, 07:31 PM

Check the ordinance, smoking is illegal on a patio not on a deck, ask Sam. He needed a place to smoke. It is also OK at the the country club because it is on a porch not a patio.

Daisy

11-30-2009, 08:13 PM

Cool, saw!! I didn't know that - I might go to Pasta Cafe just so I can smoke on the 'porch'. It's all in the wording............:smk3:

saw

11-30-2009, 08:16 PM

No--No at the Pasta it is the deck not the porch. The county club has the porch.

The state says it is OK to smoke in outside areas, only in Roswell can you not smoke on a patio. The state also says that smoking is permitted in private clubs but not in Roswell.

Councilman Steve Henderson did not want people smoking on the Patio at Pepper's therefore if Steve does not want it then the rest of the population should abide by his wishes.

Daisy

11-30-2009, 08:23 PM

Okie dokie then, I'll smoke on the 'deck' - I'm very excited to know this. :D

I am the General Manager of Pasta Cafe under its new ownership with Cattle Baron Restaurants Inc.

Hi dchavez - are you gonna let me smoke on the deck/porch/veranda?? It's not a patio, ya know......:smk1:

Scott

11-30-2009, 09:19 PM

I knew I would get a response or two at that comment. :smk1:
The ordinance is pretty clear, is it not?

LMAO on the whole Patio vs. Deck BS :smk2:

pdc

11-30-2009, 09:26 PM

When I confronted andre, he freely admitted that he was in violation of the ordinance, and immediately moved he smokers off the porch. (they happened to be his relatives, and were acting contrary to his request) He moved them down the stairs off the porch....

The intent of the ordinance is clearly to prohibit smoking where food or beverages are being served....

as one involved in getting the ordinance passed, I'm not shy about confronting violators....

Daisy

12-01-2009, 07:46 AM

The ordinance is pretty clear, is it not?

Here's what the ordinance says:

“Enclosed Area” means all space between a floor and ceiling that is enclosed on all sides by solid walls or windows (exclusive of doorways) that extend from the floor to the ceiling, and includes patio areas at restaurants.

Nothing about a porch or deck - like I said, it's all in the wording. If I owned a business and wanted to allow smoking (free country and all that), I would call my outdoor area a deck or porch.....;)

Y'all can't tell me that people smoking on a patio bothers you people when you're inside the establishment. That's just being pissy. Even if you're outside too, there's plenty of air circulation. Sheesh.....

as one involved in getting the ordinance passed, I'm not shy about confronting violators....

The violators are the smokers - as with that one restaurant in the south part of town, the Police couldn't fine the owner because people were smoking. He had all the appropriate signs up and he wasn't responsible for the people who chose to ignore them. If I remember right, by the time the Police got there, people were done with their smokes - I don't remember anyone being fined, but am not sure 'bout that. Someone actually called the Cops for that. Cuz the Police don't have anything better to do.....:rolleyes:

Scott

12-01-2009, 08:31 AM

I have to disagree with you here Daisy. If you are in fact sitting at the table next to mine and are smoking (even if we are outdoors) that is too close. I don't want to smell the smoke. For someone like me, it would affect the taste of my meal and the enjoyment of my meal.

But what about all those people ho would love to light up after a fine meal?

The probable enjoy it more than I dislike it. Where do you draw the line?

P.S. I issued the 1st ever citation for violation of the ordinance at the Variety years ago while responding to a complaint for the 2nd night in a row. The barmaid was cited as well as one patron.

John M. Cleary

12-01-2009, 09:33 AM

...As far as I am concerned, it is not a gov't matter.

If a man owns a piece of property he can allow any legal activity, its not your right to go to a restaraunt, it is your choice.

If they allow smoking and you don't like it eat some where else, eventually the free market will dictate the situation, gov't has no business in the decision unless it is on public property.

pdc

12-01-2009, 09:47 AM

Are you equally opposed to fire and other health regulations, too?

If so, then I'm glad your opinions are in a small and largely irrelevant minority in our country....

pdc

12-01-2009, 09:51 AM

After our local ordinance was in effect for a couple of years, I remember how strange it was to be asked "smoking or no-smoking" at restaurants in Albuquerque - not to mention how easily the smoke could be experienced in the so-called "non-smoking" section....

It's a public health issue, plain and simple....

Daisy

12-01-2009, 09:53 AM

I totally respect the fact that smoke bothers some people. My point is that there is room for compromise - smokers could be outside or in a separate room with ventilation.

For the government to dictate to a private business owner that they CAN NOT allow smoking in their own establishment is just wrong - business owners should be able to decide what they want to do in their place of business.

As saw said, the state allows smoking in outdoor areas and in private clubs - Roswell leaders decided they just had to take it one unreasonable step farther on behalf of public health and safety. That's just BS. What's worse is that Roswell leaders fought a group of people who were against it with city funds. The city had unlimited tax payer money to use and the group of anti smoking ordinance people had limited funding.

It's not about fairness and compromise or public health, it's all about money, power and control.............very sad. :smk2:

pdc

12-01-2009, 10:06 AM

The overwhelming majority of the money that supported the campaign to change the smoking laws came from the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement) - a little piece of the profits from every pack of cigs you purchase is paying the bills - THANKS!!!

postmaster

12-01-2009, 10:09 AM

postmaster

12-01-2009, 10:13 AM

quote: Daisy
For the government to dictate to a private business owner that they CAN NOT allow smoking in their own establishment is just wrong - business owners should be able to decide what they want to do in their place of business.

You tell'm Daisy, that's exactly what it is!

postmaster

12-01-2009, 10:19 AM

Are you equally opposed to fire and other health regulations, too?

If so, then I'm glad your opinions are in a small and largely irrelevant minority in our country....

Jeez PDC, how did you determine McCleary's opinion to be irrelevent?

Daisy

12-01-2009, 10:33 AM

Ok, Daisy, you can move this to an appropriate place!

It's okay right where it is........:smk3:

There are lots and lots of things that can kill us - hell, that's just life.

Should we be scared of every thing everywhere?? No....we should use our own judgement and take whatever precautions WE think are necessary, without government interferrence.

Car accidents kill many people every year. Should the government make car travel illegal? Of course not.

A government that instills fear in its citizens has a lot of control over those citizens.

I ain't skeered.....:nasty:

Daisy

12-01-2009, 10:39 AM

Jeez PDC, how did you determine McCleary's opinion to be irrelevent?

John, your opinions are not irrelevant - we welcome them here, as we do everyone's polite posts.

Never have I known you to be ugly or discourteous to another member and I greatly appreciate that.

I agree with you that smoking should NOT be a government matter.

pdc

12-01-2009, 11:06 AM

Jeez PDC, how did you determine McCleary's opinion to be irrelevent?
Allow me to clarify.

1) I only implied that if he were opposed to all health and safety regulations on private businesses (note the subjunctive tense) then his opinion would be part of a minute and largely irrelevant minority, as far as determining how our society operates.

2) My response was a form of reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) argumentation, a perfectly valid logical tactic....

3) In fact, I welcome any and all opinions on a discussion board, and consider them to be relevant here - and, when posted, subject to evaluation and response

pdc

12-01-2009, 11:15 AM

At the risk of many pouncing on me for these remarks, here goes: I'm curious, how does the number of second hand smoke related deaths compare to drunk driving deaths? Anyone? I don't drink, never have, yet if I go to a nice restaurant, I'm subjected to those that do, should the city put a stop to that because it has the potential to kill others? Or should I use my own judgement and make the decision to frequent these places or go elsewhere? Some don't like smoke drifting their way? I don't like what alcohol does to some people either, but I don't see the city jumping to ban it. I've read on Talk Roswell posts from people stating they don't want to take their children to restaurants and have them exposed to smoke, yet these same people take the children where alcohol is flowing freely.. when they know or could be EXPECTED to know that when they go out the door a drunk driver has the potential to kill them and their children....shssssssssssssh what am I missing here? Ok, Daisy,:naughty: you can move this to an appropriate place!

Here's a the Secondhand Smoke page (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/secondhand_smoke/index.htm) from the CDC - full of informative links....

When a person drinks alcohol, the act itself does not expose bystanders to immediate health risk (the consequences to the drinker him/herself - behavior, judgment, impairment - might affect those in proximity, and different business enforce different standards for these.) BTW, there are regulations for alcohol servers and potential legal consequences for those who serve an obviously intoxicated person....

When a person smokes a cigarette, there are immediate health risks posed for anyone in the vicinity - smoke travels and is harmful.

Daisy

12-01-2009, 11:16 AM

I issued the 1st ever citation for violation of the ordinance at the Variety years ago while responding to a complaint for the 2nd night in a row. The barmaid was cited as well as one patron.

I'm curious as to how y'all (Policemen) feel about issuing citations for something you don't believe should be illegal. I realize it's your job to do so and I respect that, but how do you feel about it?

I wouldn't be comfortable writing a citation for someone smoking in a place where the owner doesn't mind - even if it's against an 'ordinance'. I would probably just tell them to put it out or go outside.

I guess it's a good thing I'm not in law enforcement, huh? :smk3: Not really, though, my way would just be another way to enforce the law...

saw

12-01-2009, 02:01 PM

First let me tell you I am not a smoker and have never smoked a cigarette in my life. My concern is the rights of a business owner.

Scott I still have copy of that citation that you wrote that Saturday night and that is the same one that was "torn up" on Monday.

I guess you know now that you can not cite a bartender for allowing someone to smoke. The ordinance clearly states that it is not the responsibilty of the owner or his help to inforce the ordinance. The owner must post the signs, tell the patron that smoking is not legal, and not have ashtrays present, that's all! I believe that you are the only officer that has issued a citation for smoking in Roswell.

The sheriff also found that out down at Phillip's Country Kitchen which is in the county.

Someone tell me why this would not work, A sign on the front door of the business that would state that "Smoking is permitted in this business", "Smoking is not permitted in this business", "A smoking area has been provided in this business", etc.I think that a business owner should also be able to post a sign on his front door that states "No gum chewing allowed"

Signs are provided now that says that this cafe has been approved by the EPA. Signs posted by the fire marshall state that no more than a certain number of people may be in certain areas.

I know that some mom & pop establishments had to close their doors after the smoking ordinance went into effect.

One was a little hole-n-the wall mexican cafe and most it's customers smoked. The customers were mostly old mexican men who meet at the cafe in the morning had some breakfast, coffee, smokes and talked about the good old days and spent most of the morning there. Someone tell what harm was done?

Someone please also tell me why the American Cancer Society was claiming 50,000 deaths each year from second hand smoke while that number has dropped to 3000 now?

Also why did the ACS do a forty year study(100,000 folks) in California conducted by University of California paid for with tobacco tax dollars and when it was published by the British Medical Journal which concluded that SHS was not a health issue in other than small children with other health issues quickly wrote a letter stating that the study had all been done wrong. It took them 40 years to decide the study was being done wrong?

How about the studies that were done by the Oak Ridge(USA) Labortories that stated that SHS was not a cause for concern?

Why did OSHA never declare that SHS was a cause for concern in the workplace?

Why did the EPA charges get thrown out of court? Why the EPA has never done a study on it's own but just cherry picked other studies?

How is the Japs smoke twice as much as we do in the USA per capita but have much fewer cases of lung cancer?

How is that the USA has about 1/2 the smokers now as we did in 1960 but lung cancer has dropped very little?

I say get the goverment out of our lives as much as possible. If you don't want to go to a place that allows smoking no body is forcing you to.

Another thing the State did a survey in Roswell before the smoking ordinance about smoking and this was the results, 62% of the replies stated that they did not want smoking in eating establishments and only 25% did not want smoking in bars. So we got it everwhere, makes sense don't it?

Daisy

12-01-2009, 02:21 PM

I say get the goverment out of our lives as much as possible. If you don't want to go to a place that allows smoking no body is forcing you to.

A big AMEN to that, saw! To your whole post, for that matter!! :smk3:

Scott

12-01-2009, 06:54 PM

Can someone post up the ordinance - if they can find it (Good Luck!) and lets see what it REALLY says about allowing patrons to smoke.

Taco101

12-01-2009, 06:59 PM

I despise smoking in restaurants. I can see myself getting into a set to with inconsiderate smokers while trying to enjoy a meal out.

That being said, I absolutely cannot abide any more government intrusion into our lives....and I work for the .gov.

I have always voted with my wallet. I loved the food in several Roswell establishments but would not eat there because of the stench of the smokers. I ate in others that mitigated the odor.

"Don't tread on me!" makes more and more sense.

Taco101

12-01-2009, 07:00 PM

Can someone post up the ordinance - if they can find it (Good Luck!) and lets see what it REALLY says about allowing patrons to smoke.

You don't have one, Comander?

Scott

12-01-2009, 07:20 PM

You don't have one, Comander?

Not in digital format so I can copy and paste it up.

saw

12-01-2009, 08:03 PM

I'm going to tell you, Scott, what the ordinance says about allowing patrons to smoke. However, I'm not going to type out the whole thing; you can go to City Hall and get a copy.

Section 11. Violations and Penalties:

B. A person who owns, manages, operates, or otherwise controls a public place or place of employment and who fails to comply with the provisions of Section 8 of this Article shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor, punishable by: 1. A warning for a first violation. 2. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100) for a second violation within one (1) year after the warning. 3. A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for each additional violation within one (1) year after the warning.

Section 8. Posting of Signs:

A. "No Smoking" signs or the international "No Smoking" symbol (consisting of a representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it) shall be clearly and conspicuously posted in every public place and place of employment where smoking is prohibited by this Article, by the owner, operator, manager, or other person in control of that place. Office buildings and shopping malls with multiple tenants may display such signs at all public entrances to the building or shopping mall, rather than at the office or store of each tenant.
B. All ashtrays shall be removed from any area where smoking is prohibited by this Article by the owner, operator, manager, or other person having control of the area.

Section 10. Enforcement:

F. An owner, manager, operator, or employee of an establishment regulated by this Article shall inform persons violating this Article of the appropriate provisions thereof.

The foregoing outlines all of the responsibilities of the owner, manager, operator. It does not state anywhere that the owner, manager, operator is to be the enforcer.

The State ordinance goes on to say:

"The owner, manager or operator of premises subject to regulation under the Dee Johnson Clean Indoor Air Act shall not be subject to a penalty if a person on the premises is in violation of the Dee Johnson Clean Indoor Air Act as long as the owner, manager or operator has posted signs, implemented the appropriate policy and informed the person that the person is in violation of the Dee Johnson Clean Indoor Air Act."

Any other questions?

Daisy

12-01-2009, 08:56 PM

Billy posted the ordinance in the "Roswell Smoking Ordinance.....(Private Businesses)" thread. Here's a link to that post...

Smoking ordinance (http://www.talkroswell.com/talk/showpost.php?p=16404&postcount=21)

Scott

12-01-2009, 09:25 PM

Any other questions?

Just a couple of questions. Are you aware that the barmaid who was cited for being in violation of the ordinance at the Variety attempted to conceal an ashtray and some cigarettes and a lighter the night she was issued the citation as officers entered the premises? Did you also know that she had been warned about violating the ordinance the night before due to complaints called into the Police Department? It wasn't like the PD was going around looking for people smoking. It was a response to a valid coplaint that was promptly swept under the rug by someone. I could have raised hell, but I dodn't think it was worth it. Typical Roswell BS. Write the laws, but selective enforcement depending on who you are or who you knwo in the city.

saw

12-01-2009, 11:22 PM

The ticket did not say anything about the bartender trying to conceal some cigs, a lighter, and an ashtray. There is nothing in the ordinance about having cigs and a lighter. The ashtray was supposed to removed by the owner/manager but that should have been only a warning ticket because it was the first violation.

The ticket said in so many words that the bartender was charged with allowing a customer to smoke in the business which is not a valid charge.

What happen to the ticket you wrote the customer that was smoking or was there one even wrote? I remember that being an old lady in a wheelchair, correct me if I am wrong.

Scott

12-02-2009, 08:27 AM

There was someone in a wheelchair that was cited, but I don't remember that being an old lady. He was male, as I recall. At any rate, the barmaid was WARNED the night before when she had ashtrays placed out for customer's use (as well as her own). I got the impression the cigarettes she was hiding belonged to her, she may have said so. She had been smoking right along with them so I guess she WAS in violation of the ordinance. As far as all the political games that are played at City Hall and Municipal Court, I can't tell you what they did with the citations. It was rumored they were dismissed, but not because they weren't valid I can tell you that much. I was there and saw it with my own two eyes.

Sabrina

12-02-2009, 11:39 AM

Well, I can see both sides of the arguement here.

However, I lean more to one side than the other. Why? Because my mom has asthma. If she is around any kind of cigarette smoke it could send her into an asthma attack. So, I for one am glad about the smoking ordinance. I'd rather my mom be able to enjoy going places without the fear of having a smoke induced asthma attack.

Also, I have 2 little girls and don't want them inhaling any smoke into their little lungs.

Daisy

12-02-2009, 12:55 PM

Because my mom has asthma.

Then it's totally understandable that she wouldn't want to go where smoking is allowed. That's why saw's idea is a good one:

"A sign on the front door of the business that would state that "Smoking is permitted in this business", "Smoking is not permitted in this business", "A smoking area has been provided in this business", etc."

That way a business owner decides for himself what to do in his own business and customers also have a choice as to which businesses they would rather patronize. I would have no problem with any business owners who decided they didn't want smoking in their establishments. That's called freedom of choice....

When people blindly stand by while others' freedoms are taken away, because it doesn't personally affect them, some day it will be their freedoms taken and they will regret not standing for freedom and liberty in the first place.

saw

12-02-2009, 09:15 PM

pdc

12-03-2009, 06:30 AM

Again I wonder why 25% of the population can ban smoking in a bar when that 25% most likely does not even go to a bar, must less the bar that we are discussing.

Your number claims aside, the citizen and government justify this in EXACTLY THE SAME way they justify any other health and safety law and regulation in the public marketplace.

I ask the question again: Are opponents of the anti-smoking ordinance opposed to any and all health and saftety regulation in the pub lic market place (the only rationale offered so far), or is the opposition to this specific law/regulation.

If the latter, then lets get away from the abstract, and get down to the specifics of this issue.

If the former, then we're in an entirely different arena....

saw

12-03-2009, 08:12 AM

If the green sign that the health department puts on the front of an eating establishment is not there do you go ahead and eat there? What if the sign is yellow?

If there was a sign on the front of a business that said "smoking is allowed" would have to go into that business? The free market place will provide plenty of no smoking establishments.

Another thing, most people can see people smoking but they can not see contaminated food or concealed fire hazards.

I have mentioned real studies already stating that second hand smoke does not present a health hazard by it's self.

I will give you another, "The sixteen cities study" conducted by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

I agree that smoking nor second-hand smoke is good for you but you have to agree that it depends of the dosage. Every day you consume Roswell water you consume some arsenic.

Scott

12-03-2009, 08:45 AM

Scott: Did the barmaid commit a crime by hiding her cigs.? Don't you as a officer of the law have to witness the violation yourself and/or have other eye witnesses to testify that the crime of smoking was going on?

I went back and checked and the person in the wheelchair was an old lady.

Why didn't you issue a citation to the barmaid for having an ashtray(s) instead of citing her for a non-existant ordinance?

As I remember there was yourself and three of four more officers that did this "bust", correct me if I am wrong.

Again I wonder why 25% of the population can ban smoking in a bar when that 25% most likely does not even go to a bar, must less the bar that we are discussing.

As far as the tickets go they never even made to the judge. I do not know who "tore them up" but I think I know and it was not a friend of the department nor mine.

Did you not read the part where she hid the ashtray as well as the cigarettes and the lighter? The ordinance is clear.

Section 8. Posting of Signs
A. “No Smoking” signs or the international “No Smoking” symbol (consisting of a representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it) shall be clearly and conspicuously posted in every public place and place of employment where smoking is prohibited by this Article, by the owner, operator, manager, or other person in control of that place. Office buildings and shopping malls with multiple tenants may display such signs at all public entrances to the building or shopping mall, rather than at the office or store of each tenant.
B. All ashtrays shall be removed from any area where smoking is prohibited by this Article by the owner, operator, manager, or other person having control of the area.

I don't know why you are defending this so strongly. She was warned, per the ordinance. She was cited, per the ordinance. I can understand you have a problem with the narrative on the citation, but that doesn't change the fact that she broke the law and should have faced sanctions. I issued the only citation that can be issued. If you violate ANY part of teh ordinance you are subject to being cited. Regardless of what is written in the narrative. Had the citation been handled properly, instead of torn up as you claim, then there could have been testimony in court and the truth could have come out. But instead, we have this.

pdc

12-03-2009, 10:42 AM

I have mentioned real studies already stating that second hand smoke does not present a health hazard by it's self.

I will give you another, "The sixteen cities study" conducted by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Links?

I googled your reference -no links to original studies or sources.

Meanwhile. there is abundant evidence from multiple and replicated peer-reviewed studies that confirm the effects of secondhand smoke on human beings - just a small sampling:

National Cancer Institute - Secondhand Smoke Questions and answers (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS)

EPA - "Fact Sheet: Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking" (http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/etsfs.html)

CDC - Secondhand Smoke (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm)

Costs of secondhand smoke (American Academy of Actuaries) (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=20&ved=0CDoQFjAJOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.actuary.org%2Fpdf%2Fhealth%2F smoking_oct06.pdf&ei=ZPcXS8C0N46vtgfVzPzcAw&usg=AFQjCNEoi76F2o7Mk9OYGEE5F12CliQzMg&sig2=8tBjeFnyql4e3yL2IlXWbQ)

saw

12-03-2009, 12:29 PM

Try Oak Ridge National Laboratory sixteen cities study. I have been doing this for years and each time a real study is done there is a bunch of junk studies will come out which will indicate flaws in the other studies.

This what I have done, I have added some good old horse sense to the findings.

One of them being why has the second hand smoke deaths dropped from 50,000 to 3,000 in less than four years? Are second hand smokers only exposed to this one source of air pollution? Why has'nt OSHA outlawed it in the workplace? They tried to but could come up with the figures. Why has the ACS come up with things like second-hand smoke is more dangerous that smoking is? Why is it that in many other countries that smoke more per capita has fewer lung cancer deaths? Why do think that second hand smoke is more dangerous that car exhaust? You do know that there are more cars in Roswell than there are smokers? That a 350 cu in engine while idling emits 87,500 cu in of deadly exhaust gases per minute? How many smokers do you think it would take to equal that?

Back before the smoking ordinance started a friend of mine who is a evironmental scientist took an instrument that measured CO2 and CO1 both products of smoking and we took measurements on a table in the bar at three different locations and had someone set with us that was smoking. The places were Pepper's, Farley's, and the Elk's Club. We found the highest consentrations CO2 and CO1 was on the corner of Main and College standing in Farley's parking lot. Next to that was Pepper's.

I still say it is all in the dosage. If you read enough real studies and apply some horse sense you will also have doubts about the dangers of second-hand smoke.

oladcock

12-03-2009, 12:30 PM

I'm a smoker and really don't mind the ordinances. We just don't spend time and money where we can't....O.L.

pdc

12-03-2009, 12:49 PM

Try Oak Ridge National Laboratory sixteen cities study.

Saw, why do you refuse to post a link.

The scientist you refer to is Roger Jenkins

From SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roger_Allen_Jenkins):
Roger Allen Jenkins, Ph.D was a chemist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and has been called by defendant tobacco companies to testify as an Industry Expert. Jenkins performed studies funded by tobacco industry's front group "Center for Indoor Air Research" (CIAR), and subsequently turned out results favorable to the industry. He stated that he and his colleagues had developed study methodology with input from the CIAR and R.J. Reynolds (RJR). Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) received $797,892 in 1993 for Jenkins to conduct a study titled "Determination of Human Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke." He testifies on behalf of the tobacco industry, but was barred from being a Tobacco Institute witness in the Florida flight attendants (Norma Broin) case on the grounds that RJR's assistance with his field work and lab analyses made his research suspect

That's reassuring!!! :no3:

mfish

12-03-2009, 04:27 PM

pdc, what's NOT so reassuring is that approximately 25% of the population is dictating law to the rest. This whole mentality has also permeated to the national healthcare debate, and many other sorry-assed issues, like "climate change."

Me thinks there are far too many folks out there who are way too concerned with my personal health and well-being, and I wish they'd re-focus those efforts to something that truly represents the "greater good" rather than the mentality that "they" (perhaps you, included?) know what's best for me.

Libertarians have never had it so good, being able to expose all these worthless "ordinances" and "laws" (there has not been ONE person actually fined for violated the a smoking ordinance in Roswell, perhaps all of New Mexico that I'm aware of) that take the efforts of usually under-staffed law enforcement away from much more pressing issues - like catching bad guys, for instance (seen the latest stats on open cases in Roswell lately?) because some sniveling whiney-assed do-gooder feels compelled to protect me from, well ... ME.

Scott

12-03-2009, 04:45 PM

I agree with most of what you said, with the exception of the last line. I believe the intent here was to protect "us" from "you" (as far as the smoking ordinance in concerned).

Daisy

12-03-2009, 04:59 PM

I'm a smoker and really don't mind the ordinances.

You should mind it (in my opinion) simply because it strips another freedom from the concerned parties.

Don't drink, don't take drugs, don't smoke, don't spank your kids, don't, don't, don't, don't....

Slowly but surely our freedoms are dwindling - the smoking ban is just the latest - who knows what will be next.

oladcock

12-03-2009, 05:11 PM

Daisy, Oh I hear you, but there are some that do have legitimate health concerns with second hand smoke. So in public buildings, no biggy. Owners of businesses should be able to make up their own minds however. Non-smokers can vote with their feet and $$$ just like I can.....O.L.

Daisy

12-03-2009, 05:31 PM

Owners of businesses should be able to make up their own minds however.

There ya go...........and customers could then decide which establishments they wanted to patronize.

Freedom of choice for everyone...........:smk3:

mfish

12-03-2009, 05:59 PM

Scott .... protect "you" from "me?" Seriously? You truly believe that?!?!
I'd make a deal with you that I'll stay out of the "smoke free" establishments and you stay clear of the "smoking allowed" establishments ... but - seems YOU and yours have eliminated that CHOICE from my life with bogus charges and junk science to forward a selfish agenda.

I notice you have a race car of some sort on your postings. Now, I know very little about race cars, but I'm inclined to start a movement to BAN all races and race cars from Roswell - Why? Well, gee - they emit noxious odors AND noxious noises - and the POTENTIAL of great bodily injury is always present, too ... and they take away from quality of life. Oh, don't get me wrong - I have never been to a drag race in Roswell - and don't intend on going to one. But if I can save YOU and all the others who DO go from the noise and fume pollution, I'll be able to sleep much better at night knowing I made your world a safer place.

Sound stupid? You bet it does. Just as stupid as it is for some self-righteous idiots who have no inclination of ever going though the doors of the Variety (for instance) to force a policy down their throats that countermands the vast majority of the clientele's desires.

pdc

12-03-2009, 06:37 PM

pdc, what's NOT so reassuring is that approximately 25% of the population is dictating law to the rest. This whole mentality has also permeated to the national healthcare debate, and many other sorry-assed issues, like "climate change."

Libertarians have never had it so good...

There's that 25% citation again. Where does that come from and how do you justify it??

The Roswell smoking ordinance passed in 2004 and appears to have been well-accepted - I actually expected more opposition than there was...

... Many local business complained at the time, with dire predictions of lost business, etc. - but none of that came to pass. It's just the way things are now, and one hardly notices that it was ever different....

If anything near 75% of the population opposed this I can't imagine that the oppressors would not have been voted out of office, and the normal order restored. Except here, I'm hard pressed to find any public opposition anywhere in the public marketplace.

I imagine that when many fire, safety and health regulations were originally debated and ultimately passed that there was opposition by some, and maybe even an adjustment period as they were implemented, but now they are universally accepted as a condition of doing business.

As for "protecting me from me", well, go ahead and stick your head(s) in the sans and pretend that the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence does not say what it, in fact says - our politics have always had their "know-nothings" out there....

There are many libertarian positions I do support, and would gladly discuss in appropriate contexts - both those that would do away with current laws/regulations (e.g., alcohol blue laws, decriminalization of drugs) and support for elimination/relaxing of previous laws (e.g., birth control, abortion access, divorce), so, please don't characterize me as a Blue Meaney....

saw

12-03-2009, 08:17 PM

pdc since you were one of the no-smoking group,I am suprised that you did not see the results of two different polls conducted by a company from Albuquerque when the push for no-smoking came up.(paid for by NMHD with tobacco funds) They took the first poll and the results was not as good as they wanted so they polled the second time in areas that were most supportive of no-smoking. Very few of the second poll questions were asked in the SE section of town in fact I would guess that about 2/3 were asked in the NW section.

I talked to the polling firm myself after having to push the NMHD department for the information and received the questions, the answers, and the results. They admitted to me that they had some mistakes in the poll that they had done. Of course I don't what else they could do when I called to thier attention.

The poll question of course were slanted toward the approval of a no-smoking ordinance such as would you eat in restaurant that was no-smoking but did not ask the question would you eat in a restaurant that allowed smoking. I was polled twice and had a choice of supporting their cause or lying about it. Of course, I would eat in a restaurant that was no-smoking if the food and service were good and of course I would eat in a smoking restaurant if the food was good. Then a good many of the question were like would you be in favor of no-smoking in doctor's offices, day cares, indoor school functions, buildings owned by the goverment, etc. all of course were asked to make the polls top heavy with areas that were already no-smoking.

Without digging into two large filing cabinets drawers, I will tell you what I remember,
25% of those that were polled objected to smoking in bars. about the same percentage in private clubs, far less objected to smoking in outside areas.

In fact the ordinance was in front of the council when Steve Henderson decided that smoking on patios should not be allowed because he had been to some place in Las Cruces and when the door was open to the patio some smoke drifted in. At first the bars were going to allow smoking but the bar- restauants objected to that because that would be an uneven playing field.
The the private clubs went the same way.

Now if you have been around Roswell anytime you will have noted that it takes only 14% of the registered voters to decide who is mayor and one of the city councilors got only 11% of his wards registered voters.

Another question for pdc, why is it OK to smoke 10' away from the front door but 10' away from the entrance door on a patio?

The logical thing for the city to do is repeal the smoking ordinance and let the state ordinance take it's place. A good lawyer would murder this city ordinance because it is so badly written and it was changed after the city council approved it.

One last question, why did you folks that are non-smokers want to go into smoking establishments? They did not need you and I can't see why you needed them.

saw

12-03-2009, 08:48 PM

One more thing, I know Roger Jenkins and have talked to him a lot and he did these studies while at ORNR and one of the sponsors was the ACS.

Do you think that ORNR was paid off by big tobacco to falsify the very real scientific studies done with real people?

After Roger retired from ORNL he did testify on behald of the tobacco companies. When you hire a professional witness, you hire him because of his knowledge about the subject, Right. I don't think that big tobacco would go out and hire someone that could not support his findings which I understand he has done quite well at.

Another thing he has a common horse sense approach to his research. I suggest that you read some of studies.

I would like to see one common horse study done with real people that supports the cause of the second hand smoking theory. The ACS did sponsor the so called 40 year study up until the outcome did not support the results that they wanted. Then five days before it was published in the BMJ they said it was flawed. Must be mighty slow folks that takes them 38 years or so to discover that they were the sponsors of a flawed research program being conducted by USC.

pdc

12-04-2009, 06:48 AM

No, Saw, I never saw the polling you cited.

There's a lot of "good lawyers" out there, so why hasn't the law been shot down already - what are opponents waiting for?

Sorry, but I believe your faith in the integrity of the Tobacco Industry's funding of research and record on deliberately distorting, withholding and otherwise undermining the scientific evidence regarding the effects of smoking and secondhand smoke is baseless and has been soundly discredited....

The anti-smoking ordinance has be in place, has been accepted by the public and is now the established way of doing business - it's not a live issue....

Smokers still have access to their preferred products, and can partake of them in the privacy of their own lives - pray for them....

If your numbers are correct (14%), then, apparently, you're in a smaller minority than I even would have guessed, eh?

mfish

12-04-2009, 08:30 AM

So pdc claims "the debate is over" on yet another agenda fomented by a minority based on junk science and bogus claims ... are you related to Al Gore by chance, or just voted for him ...?

I was saddened to see the business owners crater on this issue when they did. For many years, the Chamber of Commerce and local businesses felt this was onerous legislation and the decision to allow smoking in a private business should be left to the business owner, based on his clientele's wishes. And it was tabled and beat back time and again, but unfortunately, the anti-smoking nazis finally wore them down, kind of like when a whiney baby won't stop whining, and you finally just shove a pacifier into its mouth...

Pdc - just out of curiosity, how often do you frequent Billy Ray's or the Variety? How about Pepper's patio? I'm really interested in how this ordinance actually improved your quality of life.

Lebo

12-04-2009, 09:53 AM

Miss pdc, your argument (or lack there) is ad hominem at best. You would do well to actually respond to the points being made by mfish and saw (and others) instead of reacting on emotions and prejudices.

If you would read the studies done by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, you would find that all they have done is determine the actual amounts of carcinogens that are contained in second-hand smoke. That being said, you really don't seem to get it. The main factor here is property rights. Obviously, you are in opposition to them and nothing is going to change your mind.

Again though, you might read the studies done by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory so you can hopefully argue on facts instead of your own prejudices. Do you really think that the Oak Ridge National Laboratory altered the results of their studies because of "big tobacco"?

pdc

12-04-2009, 09:58 AM

Pdc - just out of curiosity, how often do you frequent Billy Ray's or the Variety? How about Pepper's patio? I'm really interested in how this ordinance actually improved your quality of life.
While it makes absolutely no difference to the discussion - here's my answer.

I've been to The Variety twice (& I consider it a hangout for career alcoholics :smk3:)

I occasionally go to Billy Rays for music, but, unfortunately for me, not too often in recent years

I was once a "regular" at Pepper's Happy hours, but, also, less frequently in the past couple of years - I consider the patio there to be one of the very best environments in Roswell

Also, I reserve the right to patronize any of them when I choose.

One of the most shocking differences I encountered as a result of the ordinance was at Bud's - even with the spotty compliance before it closed, the difference in the evenings was astounding....

Daisy

12-04-2009, 10:31 AM

Also, I reserve the right to patronize any of them when I choose.

You talk about reserving your rights, but don't seem to think everyone should have those same rights.

Business owners should have the right to allow or not allow smoking or any other legal activity in their establishments. Smoking is not illegal.....yet. In some California cities, they have banned people from smoking in their apartments and on their porches. Surely you see where this is headed?? Surely you can't agree with it??

What could possibly be wrong with allowing business owners to decide for themselves and customers to decide which places they would patronize as well?? Some businesses would decide to allow smoking, some would decide not to allow it. Customers would then choose to go to those places based on the owners' decision.

Again, that's called freedom of choice.........for all those involved, not just a few.

mfish

12-04-2009, 10:38 AM

Lebo, it's like trying to hold a meaningful conversation with an area rug.

Pdc, it really kind of DOES make a difference, seeing how you and your comrades negatively affected the business of the establishments. Limitation of choice in dining out options is the primary reason Roswell restaurants stay afloat. But then - I'm sure you don't feel that way at all, and merely wanted to improve the quality of a lifestyle you want/have little or nothing to do with ... here's a thought: Join up with Habitat for Humanity next time you have that urge.

From what I heard, the evenings at Bud's - once they went full compilant, were similar to an evening spent at Ballard's Funeral Home...

Scott

12-04-2009, 10:58 AM

To give you a little insight to a non-smoker married to an asthma patient, let me say this. Prior to the ordinance my wife and I could not go to Red Lobster because it just wasn't worth paying all the money to risk an asthma attack. The simple fear of one would ruin the meal in the event someone began smoking. I support the ordinance becasue now I can choose to go to ANY resturant in Roswell and not have to worry about some smoker who doesn't give a damn about others in the resturant. I keep hearing that the non smokers should just spend their monay elsewhere. Sure, maybe we could go to one of the other FIVE restuarants in Roswell and eat there. Are you serious? Can you not see the other side of the issue? I bet a smoker can go into a non-smoking restuarant and their meal wouldn't be affected. SOME non smokers CANNOT be around it. You would expect the non-smoker to be subject to your smoke just so you can light one up (or just have them go elsewhere)?

I will qualify this post with this. If a business want to go through the expense of building a sealed room with ventalation for the smokers, why not? I also don't care so much if people smoke in bars cause I don't go to them, but thats just me.

pdc

12-04-2009, 11:09 AM

BTW, one documented negative consequence of anti-smoking ordinances - I only read of this in data compilations from "back East" - was that when local communities passed such ordinances, and there was still smoking in bars in adjacent communities, there was an increase in DWI's arrests and traffic accidents, due to smokers driving farther to get to bars.

I read this years ago (~2005), and am too lazy to searh for actual citations now. When I worked closely with prevention folks, I used to keep up more closely with related information than I do now....

I imagine this changes when entire states pass ordinances, except of course at borders....

Daisy

12-04-2009, 11:17 AM

If a business want to go through the expense of building a sealed room with ventalation for the smokers, why not?

Excellent compromise - Roswell businesses weren't given this choice, though.

pdc

12-04-2009, 11:21 AM

As for "choice" - there is no difficulty in choosing, based upon smoking options within the restaurant or bar, because they are all the same - no smoking.

The last time I was at Bud's it was jammed to overflowing (line waiting outside) the environment was as rowdy as I recall from before the ordinance, for sure, and there were both fights and arrests in the parking lot. I fail to see any difference - except that my clothes didn't stink when I left and I wasn't coughing the next morning - formerly expected....

In Boulder, one of the first communities I was aware of that had no-smoking in all bars, they did have a few that had sealed smoking areas with separate ventilation systems - they were, however, not allowed to serve in those areas. The one I distinctly remember sold cigars, and the original reason for the area was for cigar consumption....

Smoking isn't legal in any other public building, so limiting it in bars is not limiting a "legal activity, eh?

saw

12-04-2009, 11:45 AM

The seperate smoking area offer was made to the city by the Citizens Rights Committee. It would not be a big deal to seperate smoking from no-smoking areas with proper ventalation in most all of the establishments. A place like Appleby's would present a problem due it's layout but it could be done.

pdc. The CRC also ask that the smoking ordinance be put on the ballot and that was shot down also. That would have been a true indication about how the citizens of Roswell felt about the ordinance. The CRC went to a council to ask for delay in the enforcement in the ordinance so that they might have some input in the ordinance. That request was voted down even thought they had put the enforcement off until after the Alien Fest because it would hurt business. I know of one convention that said they won't be back because of our stupid no-smoking law

You must have read in RDR about revenues lost because of the smoking ordinance. The Eagles had to cut their charitable contributions a bunch.
I know of three of four mom & pop resturants that closed their doors. Revenues shot up in fast food businesses and take out orders increased.

Scott, how about the perfumes that some of these gals bath in which drives me out of an establishment or the perfumed candles? Since non-smokers make up about 75% of the adult population business will find a way to accomodate them

pdc, I am still waiting on replies to my questions. I have another question for you, why does some tobacco products not have the surgeons general warning on them?

I am still waiting on someone to tell why the city does not choose to adopt the state ordinance.

pdc. The reason that the ordinance has not been challenge by lawyers is because the issue has never reach a courtroom. Have you read the ordinance? What do you think when you read smoking in not legal on patios, but it is on porches, etc. When it is legal to smoke 10'from the front door of a business but not 10' from the doorway to a patio. In downtown Roswell you have to choose certain places to smoke and legally walk down a sidewalk. When the penalty for smoking is a petty misdeanor, a charge that goes on your permanent record and may prevent you from getting a job, renting a house, etc. Why is the penalty more sever than getting a ticket driving 55 miles an hour down the main street of Roswell?

Again the City council was elected in 2006 with only 14% of the registered voters. They do not speak for the majority of the citizens in Roswell.

pdc

12-04-2009, 11:56 AM

pdc, I am still waiting on replies to my questions. I have another question for you, why does some tobacco products not have the surgeons warning on them?
I'vbe tried to answer questions - not sure which I missed....

I'm not aware of that, so my answer id "I don't know" - do you?

mfish

12-04-2009, 01:33 PM

Scott wrote: To give you a little insight to a non-smoker married to an asthma patient, let me say this. Prior to the ordinance my wife and I could not go to Red Lobster because it just wasn't worth paying all the money to risk an asthma attack. The simple fear of one would ruin the meal in the event someone began smoking. I support the ordinance becasue now I can choose to go to ANY resturant in Roswell and not have to worry about some smoker who doesn't give a damn about others in the resturant. I keep hearing that the non smokers should just spend their monay elsewhere. Sure, maybe we could go to one of the other FIVE restuarants in Roswell and eat there. Are you serious? Can you not see the other side of the issue? I bet a smoker can go into a non-smoking restuarant and their meal wouldn't be affected. SOME non smokers CANNOT be around it. You would expect the non-smoker to be subject to your smoke just so you can light one up (or just have them go elsewhere)?

Scott, had the six or so times you and your wife "would have frequented the Red Lobster" every year made a significant negative/positive impact on their revenue they would have made a capitalist business decision and accommodated your needs without the necessity of an onerous and dogmatic ordinance. Same with every other establishment, by the way. And that's why you saw shrinking "smoking sections" in many of them long before the anti-smoking nazis stuck their noses where they really didn't belong.

Most business owners are savvy enough to recognize trends without a nanny doing it for them. Many restaurants limited "smoking sections" to their lounges only - some limited "smoking sections" to evenings only. Some invested adequate capitol to utilize state-of-the-art HVAC systems that created "negative air flow" - meaning everything in the room was completely exhausted out of that room several times an hour.Unfortunately, those systems are expensive - and those costs get passed on to the consumer, and some restaurants either didn't want to spend the money, or simply could not. However, several of the "nice" places in town have installed those high-tech HVAC systems, and were able to accommodate smokers and non-smokers alike with few instances of discomfort for either. Using some common sense - the business owner as well as the customer - also did well to stave off any displeasure. For example:

Rule #1 in a town where you can still smoke in the lounge, if you're a non-smoker who can't stand the smell: Do not sit in the Lounge.

If a restaurant lounge becomes vacant because the majority of the restaurant's customers won't sit in there, the business owner then must make a decision to either a) switch the lounge to non-smoking as well; or b) suffer the economic impact of not doing so. Many businesses are very capable of making those decisions on their own without the assistance of a nanny.

I'll have my petition to ban all drag racing in the city ready for circulation soon - and I think I'll use the same "science" for this cause as the anti-smoking nazis used for that one - except I get to add "noise pollution" along side the unpleasant fumes, the dangers of those fumes to the spectators (second-hand fumes) as well as the participants, the potential of death - both spectators and participants, and let's not forget the general quality of life banning all racing in Roswell will bring ... also, folks might not be scared to stay in town (for fear of being hit by a race car trailer-towing pickup trying to find the turn off to the track).

Maybe we can add an adendum to ban "dust storms" and tree pollen while we're at it, so everyone with asthma can go outside anytime they wish, without fear of being overcome by unbreathable air ...

Don't bother trying to argue this - the debate is over. It's proven scientifically that drag racing KILLS and causes long-term ill effects on respiratory systems.

Once this gets jammed through the feckless city council (or put to a vote!), I'm sure we can dream up all kinds of idiotic causes to put forth, making Roswell as "safe" as can be ... you think that town is boring now? Hide and watch!:rolleyes:

Scott

12-04-2009, 03:14 PM

You bring up some valid points Fish.

I have to warn you before you go through all that effort, I don't race in Roswell. :smk1:

I can see valid points on both sides of the argument, but as you know, it isn't like this a Albuquerque where you can "just go eat somewhere else". We are very limited on choices, and non-smokersshould have the opportunity to eat in a smoke free environment.

Lebo

12-04-2009, 03:57 PM

I can see valid points on both sides of the argument, but as you know, it isn't like this a Albuquerque where you can "just go eat somewhere else". We are very limited on choices, and non-smokersshould have the opportunity to eat in a smoke free environment.
__________________
So what you're saying, Scott, is that it's okay for business owners to have property rights in Albuquerque because there are more of them; but property rights are NOT okay in Roswell because you want to be able to do what you want to do, when you want it. Therefore, everyone should live in a "police state" because it's all about you. By the way, I'm a non-smoker, but anyone can see the slippery slope that personal/property rights are headed down because of people like you. If there were no choices of places to dine out in Roswell because of smoking, you might try eating at home (smoke free environment?) instead of trying to dictate your wishes on property owners who work hard to make those mortgage, insurance, tax, maintenance payments on THEIR property.

saw

12-04-2009, 05:18 PM

Daisy

12-05-2009, 07:56 AM

and there was still smoking in bars in adjacent communities, there was an increase in DWI's arrests and traffic accidents, due to smokers driving farther to get to bars.

Hmmm, people drove farther to exercise their freedom of choice - whoda thunk it?

What amazes me is that the anti smoking Nazis would interpret this to mean that they should ban smoking in all the adjacent communities, too, instead of thinking they shouldn't have banned it at all. Unbelievable....

Those who don't fully understand what freedom means will never understand why this smoking ordinance is wrong.

It's been fun debating it, though............:smk3:

pdc

12-05-2009, 08:06 AM

Scott I am sure that if the business in Roswell had a choice they would provide non-smoking areas to accomadate 75% of the adult population that are non-smokers.

At this point in the game to me it is the choice of the Roswell ordinance or the New Mexico ordinance. The NM ordinance is better written and does a better job. I don't like the fact that either one is there. They both infringe on the business man's rights to decide how to run his business. Now there are other ones coming, like calories are going to be posted. Next the goverment will tell us what to eat and not to eat. And so it goes. So what do you think about outlawing drag racing, Fish made a lot of good points.

Re: the analogy to Drag racing - what does the legality drag racing have to do with property rights? I suppose it might be similar to the legality of smoking - but, in this discussion, smoking is still allowed, just not in public places where it is dangerous; likewise, drag racing is not allowed in on public roadways, or, private parking lots, for that matter....

How does society, government, whatever, deal with conflicting rights? Here, property rights come into conflict with the rights of the citizen to safe and healthy public marketplace?

Nothing in conservative political theory, in general, or our constitution, in particular, places property rights above any and all others - sometimes tough calls need to be made....

The Preamble to the Constitution:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Daisy

12-05-2009, 09:42 AM

Here, property rights come into conflict with the rights of the citizen to safe and healthy public marketplace?

And THAT'S how the government justifies its intrusion into our lives - stick public health and safety in there and the citizens will fall for it damn near every time.....that and fear, as in 'you're gonna die from second hand smoke'. :fear2:

They count on public gullibility and it nearly always works. :ohwell:

what does the legality drag racing have to do with property rights?

Wow, how can anyone not see the correlation there?? If the government can claim smoking is a health hazard and take away smoking freedoms, it's only a baby step more to claim anything and everything (such as drag racing, alcohol, guns, drugs - oops already been done) is a health hazard and ban it as well. That's why even many who don't smoke (like saw) see the danger in governmental control and want it stopped before it spreads to other areas in our lives.

Hee, hee, I bet if they decided sex was a health hazard (which it can be in older people) and banned it, people would raise a huge uproar. ;)

But human nature being the way it is, some will say, "Well if a governmental ban doesn't affect me personally, it's okay". Those people are sometimes called sheeple - they blindly follow along with government control, not seeing the big picture. That's exactly what happened in Nazi Germany -people looked the other way and when they finally woke up, it was too late.

oladcock

12-05-2009, 01:05 PM

"it's only a baby step more to claim anything and everything (such as drag racing, alcohol, guns, drugs - oops already been done) is a health hazard and ban it as well."

You can see this in action with the health care reform debate. They "argue" that other countries have longer life spans, blah, blah, blah.....Taking the population as a whole..Yes they do....Because of their poor standard of living they can not afford to race cars, skydive, snowmobiles, atv's, dirt bikes, and only drive 1/10th the miles we do, ect....Our "freedom" and prosperity allows us to persue "fun" things that'll kill us at a higher rate. Take out those numbers and only look at ailments, our health care is much better and much cheaper.

Enter government control in health care, mixed with cap and trade.....They will slowly but surely "outlaw" anything that might hurt you in the name of "public health" or "environment"...Driving?....Kills and hurts thousands every year..So force us to drive less by artificially raising gas prices, tax coal and natural gas to the point we no longer have spare $$$ to buy that dirt bike, ect.....We see this at every turn...It's the underlying goal of EVERYTHING they (the progressives) suggest...To control...To reduce the standard of living and make us dependant on the government....To twist our arms to vote for those that will "give" us the most....It's slavery pure and simple pushed by the liberal left in the name of "helping" the poor and down trodden. The "war on poverty" started in the 1960's...More money has been spent then on all our wars combined, yet the "poverty rate" has gotten worse and will continue to do so the more the government tries to "help". If someone really wants to help the poor, quit trying to help!......O.L.

Daisy

12-05-2009, 02:58 PM

Yep, you get it, too!! Smoking is just one of the more recent activities they have outlawed.

Right now in some states, the government can take your house, your vehicles and your kids if you don't play by their rules. All in the name of health and safety - that's Gestapo stuff right there and the majority of the people just don't see it....

Now, they want to go farther with health care and cap and trade, as you stated, OL. And the sheeple just keep cheering them on.....:smk2:

A useless smoking ordinance is just one more way to exercise control. I would love to see new people elected to our City Council who would overturn some of these stupid ordinances. How cool that would be! :D

pdc

12-05-2009, 03:06 PM

Changing the subject, eh? (Health care; global warming...)

And then, this:

Gestapo stuff right there and the majority of the people just don't see it

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Daisy

12-05-2009, 04:40 PM

I rest my case...............:p

saw

12-05-2009, 09:04 PM

oladcock

12-05-2009, 10:26 PM

Saw, Another good example of political decisions being influenced by junk science.....O.L.

pdc

12-05-2009, 10:28 PM

pdc. Some research materials and articles you might find interesting if you will read them. http://www.heartland.org/article.cfm?artid=23332.

An article entitled "Best Available Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger" published in Environment & Climate News Vol.11 No. 5 July 2008. This article is by Dr. Jerome Arnett, Jr MD (pulmonologist)

I think if you will read about some "real people" studies instead of the junk science materials you will have a better handle on the subject of secondhand smoke issues. A well-recognized toxicological principle states, "The dose makes the poison".

One more question for you, If secondhand smoke is such a great health risk
why are court dockets not jammed with lawsuits?

Heartland Institute has a questionable record of publishing questionable studies. i looked at the materials you linked, and still regard them to be an insignificant drop in the bucket compared to the landslide of studies to the contrary. (For example, see, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute))
In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that a bibliography written by Dennis Avery and posted on Heartland’s Web site, titled "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares,”[8] included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical."

I really don't respect spotty information put forth by politically motivated, industry-funded organizations when there is an overwhelming body of scientific evidence from a great diversity of sources, independent of partisan political groups.

There are a variety of far-right political types, of whom you appear to be one, who assume anti-scientifc postures and question even the most sound and stable evidence - evolution; climate-warming; dangers of smoking, primary and secondhand smoke, and many more - it's a discredit to America, the most scientifically advanced country on earth, with such a wonderful system of higher education and tradition of scientific research.

Please don't waste your time citing discredited sources and information - it takes merely a few seconds to discover the accurate information in this day and age. You aren't doing yourself, or your positions, any good with such junk, and it insults my intelligence....

pdc

12-06-2009, 08:09 AM

A addendum to the above....

I believe we can disagree and debate over: political values and principles; the relative priority of different types of "rights" (property, individual, human, etc.); how to apply scientific knowledge to practical or political matters; and many other topics and both sides be on firm and stable ground logically and empirically....

But, I affirm that to dismiss both the preponderance of scientific evidence/studies and the generally accepted scientific knowledge in an area as "junk science", and then to offer suspect individual articles as evidence to the contrary, places one on unsound ground and impugns their argumentation.

Thanks.

Daisy

12-06-2009, 08:30 AM

I really don't respect spotty information put forth....

You've made it clear that you don't respect any info that contradicts what you have decided to believe. In typical form, first you ask saw to post links, then when he does, you post an extremely rude reply to it. A simple 'thank you, but I still disagree' would have been nice, but nooooo.

Thanks for the links, saw. There is lots of info debunking the dangers of second hand smoke as the junk it is. It has never solidly been proven to cause heart attacks, cancer, or any other malady in otherwise healthy people. One article was even titled Second Hand Smoke and Mirrors, which is exactly what it is. This was all started to force people to stop smoking. As I stated earlier, these liberals with agendas rely on public gullibility and they aren't often disappointed.

Those who understand what it's really all about will be interested in this little blurb I found which pretty much says it all about the anti smoking Nazis.

"The next two obvious steps, already in progress, are restricting smoking on beaches, parks, lines, doorways...and then restricting it in homes, particularly where there are sensitive children."

- John Banzhaf, CBS Good Morning, April 22, 2001

Y'all ought to look up this Banzhaf guy - some call him a 'distinguished professor' - I call him.......well, never mind. :smk2:

Scott

12-06-2009, 09:15 AM

I've got a study for you. I performed this study by myself. Food tastes better without some selfish smoker ruining it for everyone else in the restuarant. The meal is also more enjoyable if I don't have to fear my wife having an asthma attack during our meal.

You can cite allt he studies you want, but I have lived it. When you are forced to get up and leave a resturant because of the smoke, it is hard not to support this ordinance.

Daisy

12-06-2009, 09:36 AM

Then, there would be nothing wrong with ventilated designated smoking areas, would there?

I would be called freedom of choice for all, not just a few. :smk3:

Neil

12-06-2009, 09:53 AM

Then, there would be nothing wrong with ventilated designated smoking areas, would there?

I would be called freedom of choice for all, not just a few. :smk3:

So one area for smokers completely isolated from an area for non smokers. Good idea but why stop there. One area for diners with screaming children and one for people who want a meal in peace. Same for diners who seem to have a cell phone surgically attached to the side of their head and have an uncontrollable urge to shout into it.
Where would it stop?

saw

12-06-2009, 09:56 AM

Daisy

12-06-2009, 09:58 AM

Where would it stop?

Where will the banning of personal choices and freedoms lead us is perhaps a better question.

There will always be people we disapprove of or who bother us in one way or another. We need to put on our big boy and girl pants and deal with it in a logical, rational way without infringing on those personal freedoms. :smk3:

pdc

12-06-2009, 10:45 AM

pdc: You did not read the "California Study" did you? If you only read material that agrees with your own point of view, your knowledge will be flawed.

You got to look at both sides of the info and then use some common horse sense to make decisions.

Ask yourself some questions like does it make sense that ORNL would publish a study that had been swayed by big tobacco? It is a national lab you know, why would they disagree with the EPA?

Do you have a link that goes into the detailed data that was presented in the California study? Do you have one that goes into the detail that the 16 Cities study done by ORNL. The EPA did not do a study but cherry picked other studies to based their information on and then it was tossed out of court by a federal judge. Since that time two Surgeon Generals have quoted that information as God's truth.

Saw, no, I did not "read" the study - just as you did not "read" all the information and links I provided regarding secondhand smoke - far more extensive and wide ranging, BTW (and because of their sheer number and variety, would require weeks to fully consume...).

I did follow links to ONRL's tobacco studies conducted by Roger Jenkins. I found that "exposures to environmental tobacco smoke may be lower than earlier studies indicated for bartenders, waiters and waitresses". Also, that partial explanation of the differences could be attributed to both "the establishments monitored and/or ventilation systems that are more efficient" than present in previous studies - they were not, therefore, entirely conclusive about all such environments. I also read that they found considerable variability by "micro-environments" - that some workers could be more/less exposed than others working in the same establishment.

I did not find anything remotely suggesting that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke is not dangerous nor to be reduced/avoided.

I also read that these studies conducted by ORNL were funded by The Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR). Minimal research revealed that CIAR funded two types of projects for two different purposes: 1) peer-reviewed projects (most of which were unrelated to the effects of secondhand tobacco smoke) that were awarded based on recommendations of independent scientists, and 2) special projects that were awarded based on the recommendations of tobacco industry executives and that tended to yield results that supported tobacco industry positions minimizing and trivializing the health effects of secondhand tobacco smoke. Also, CIAR "was disbanded as a requirement of the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement between 46 United States Attorneys General and the American tobacco industry", even though the Phillip Morris attempted to revive it under a different name (using exactly the same offices, CEO, etc.)

So, the studies YOU cite support that secondhand smoke exposure might not be as extensive as previously thought for some workers, they do nothing to change the knowledge base regarding the dangers of secondhand smoke in general. Furthermore, I do not think they are convincing enough to overturn the restrictions implemented by ordinances such as Roswell's.

Lebo

12-06-2009, 10:47 AM

Daisy, Neil, saw and mfish: There is no hope of ever having a rational conversation with... They refuse to consider the rights of others instead of just their own demands, not to mention totally ignoring the concept of logic in any way, shape or form. So approaching the subject of property rights with them is a lost cause. I must admire the four of you for continuing in your efforts though.:shoot:

Edited by Daisy........no name calling, please.

saw

12-06-2009, 10:58 AM

pdc

12-06-2009, 01:13 PM

pdc: Without going back and reading the ORNL studies again I think that the conclusions were that the EPA and CDC had overstated the dangers of secondhand smoke by about ten times. If I am wrong I am sure you will correct me.

The EPA also states as many as 3000 people die each year. Would it be they are only guessing? I think that two known deaths could be stated as many as 3000.

Well it is a lot better than when they made their(NMHD) pitch here in Roswell, it was as many as 50,000 died each year then. When I questioned them (NMHD) about that number they did own up and say that that was an estimated number that they had come up with.

Now tell me one more time who says that as many as 3000 people die each year from secondhand smoke.

Saw - the ORNL studies were about exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace, NOT about the dangers of secondhand smoke.

Quibbling over a particular number, when there is an overabundance of evidence of the manifold negative consequences and/or risks of secondhand smoke is about as weak as an argument can get....

Secondhand smoke is classified as a "known human carcinogen" (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization.

CDC - Secondhand Smoke Causes Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/sids/)

BTW, some numbers can only be "estimates" based upon extrapolation from a variety of data - and no one denies that these numbers are estimates....

From WikiAnswers (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Deaths_from_secondhand_smoke)
According the Surgeon General, the American Lung Association and the Centers for Disease Control, there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke contains at least 250 toxic chemicals with 50 of those being cancer causing as well as just generally toxic.

The number of people killed is an estimate, and it varies wildly depending on who is doing the math. Some estimate 65,000 Americans a year. Others estimate 53,800 a year. The 53,800 deaths number is "based on the midpoint numbers for heart disease deaths (48,500), lung cancer deaths (3,000), and SIDS deaths (2,300) as calculated in the 1997 California EPA Report on Secondhand Smoke." The American Lung Association says that 3,400 nonsmokers die from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke and says "46,000 (ranging from 22,700 to 69,600) deaths per year from heart disease in adult nonsmokers."

Let's just face a SIMPLE FACT: Exercising your "right" to smoke, while in the presence of other human beings (without their explicit permission), is disrespecting their rights.

John M. Cleary

12-06-2009, 04:39 PM

"Let's just face a SIMPLE FACT: Exercising your "right" to smoke, while in the presence of other human beings (without their explicit permission), is disrespecting their rights."

On public property, yes.........on private property no.

Daisy

12-06-2009, 08:09 PM

On public property, yes.........on private property no.

Exactly!! :smk3:

saw

12-06-2009, 08:37 PM

The only area that is not a public place in the Roswell ordinance is a private residence unless it is used as a child care, adult care, or health care facility, then it is considered a public place.

I don't think that the goverment (city or otherwise) should tell me that I can not allow smoking at my private functions. That should be between me and the company that owns the facility that I want to hold my private function in.

Why is it up to the city goverment to decide that the members of my private club can not smoke if the members of my club OK it?

Why is it to the city goverment to decide that I can not allow smoking at my wedding party or at my wake?

pdc: what are your objections? Would you support a move to adopt the state ordinance and repeal the city ordinance? If not, why?

pdc

12-06-2009, 09:58 PM

On non-commercial private property, I have no problem.

Private property used for commercial purposes - accessible to the public, or employing anyone other than the owner, should be subject to same restrictions as public property.

I'm satisfied with the Roswell Ordinance as it is. (Well, maybe not with the exception for hotel rooms....)

Daisy

12-07-2009, 08:02 AM

Funny how the 'don't allow people to smoke anywhere' people won't even discuss the option of separate areas for smokers. They are so hell bent on forcing their views on others, they can't even bring themselves to imagine there could be a compromise. And to insinuate that people shouldn't be allowed to smoke behind their closed doors in motel rooms they have paid for.......ridiculous.

As for health issues, all kinds of crap is made up to scare people out of smoking. I have found articles disputing damn near every claim of second hand smoke health problems. Out of respect for John, I won't go into the SIDS issue, but there is plenty of evidence disputing that lie. Now days, if someone dies of an infected toe nail and he smokes, the anti smokers say he died from smoking. Again, ridiculous.

The bottom line is that we don't need anti smoking Nazis dictating to private business owners what they can or can't do in their business. If someone doesn't like what a business owner decides to do, they don't have to work in or patronize his establishment. Period. No whining about it...

As for personal freedoms - we all have them. Some just think they have more of them than others. They are poor misguided souls who believe all the hype put out by the 'force people to do what we want' group. They can stay in their own little warped world. I won't be joining them there. :smk3:

pdc

12-07-2009, 08:44 AM

Re: separate areas for smokers.

It's already established that merely having "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections do not successfully prevent exposure to secondhand smoke, so the "separateness" needs to be very clearly established (like I described in Boulder CO.) and not just a return to status quo ante....

Please describe exactly how this would work:

Requirements for physical separateness
Requirements for totally separate ventilation
Separate from food and beverege service? (Must be so, since employees would need to be "separate" also)
Window to the rest of the establishment, or totally enclosed?
Estimated cost
Your own willingness to go inside this separate environment to have a smoke, as opposed to stepping outside.

Scott

12-07-2009, 08:45 AM

Daisy

12-07-2009, 08:47 AM

I remembered your response and appreciate the fact that you understand what compromise is all about. :smk3:

John M. Cleary

12-07-2009, 08:54 AM

" Private property used for commercial purposes - accessible to the public, or employing anyone other than the owner, should be subject to same restrictions as public property"

So........then that private property, according to your view is not private.

It is either private or not, you can not have it both ways.

People need to make their own choices , not have them legislated for them.

pdc

12-07-2009, 11:20 AM

No, in our country, we, in fact, do have it "both ways" - there are several well-established restrictions on private property rights, many of them coming into play when commerce and/or public access is involved....

No right to property, however, is absolute in any society.

Wikipedia includes this under "Property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property)""
Traditional principles of property rights includes:

1. control of the use of the property
2. the right to any benefit from the property (examples: mining rights and rent)
3. a right to transfer or sell the property
4. a right to exclude others from the property.

Traditional property rights do not include:

1. uses that unreasonably interfere with the property rights of another private party (the right of quiet enjoyment).
2. uses that unreasonably interfere with public property rights, including uses that interfere with public health, safety, peace or convenience.

saw

12-07-2009, 05:46 PM

pdc: are you telling me that my private club is not private but public?

I know what I am talking about, and I can set at a table four foot from your table and smoke a big old black cigar and there will not be one fraction of a gram of harmful material get to you.

There is no reason to have a sealed room, seperate waiters, pass through windows, nor any of that other stuff you mention. It can be done without spending a bunch of money. Just expend some good old common horse sense and some well known ventalation know how.

The reason that I say I know what I am talking about is I was a project manager in a copper smelter renovation that removed the sulfur dioxide from the working floor.

Again, the question, why does OSHA not just outlaw smoking in the workplace? I know the answer do you?

pdc

12-08-2009, 07:40 AM

If you have something you want to share, saw, please do....

I'm unaware of any ventilation system that is as effective as you claim....

John M. Cleary

12-08-2009, 09:42 AM

No, in our country, we, in fact, do have it "both ways" - there are several well-established restrictions on private property rights, many of them coming into play when commerce and/or public access is involved....

No right to property, however, is absolute in any society.

Wikipedia includes this under "Property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property)""

Smoking is a legal activity, the property owner can chose to allow it or not, it really is a private property matter.
Now if the owner is selling a commercial product, such as food he does have to abide by health codes, for what he distributes, not what he allows his customers to do.

As for wikipedia, anyone can post anything there, so I would try another source next time .

As for " No right to property, however, is absolute in any society".........I should be astounded by that statement, but I'm not because this country has traded small bits of security for large losses in Freedom. It really started when do gooders decided to make my life their hobby rather than just taking care of themselves.

For the record I don't smoke, I just respect the rights of people and property owners.

pdc

12-08-2009, 10:12 AM

Actually there sre a variety of legal restrictions on smoking - age limits, I'd requirements for sales, and, of course, it is NOT LEGAL TO SMOKE in places prohibited by the ordinance...

So, it's not a 'legal activity' like, for example, chewing gum.

you're guilty of "begging the question"....

Daisy

12-08-2009, 01:25 PM

As for wikipedia, anyone can post anything there, so I would try another source next time .

I was wondering when someone was going to mention that - wikipedia is an information dumping ground. Anyone can put anything in there - truth or lies, fact or fiction.

So, it's not a 'legal activity' like, for example, chewing gum.

Oh, but it is a legal activity for adults. As it should be. If I was to light up in a restaurant tonight, I might be asked to leave, but I doubt if anyone would throw me in jail for it. I would finish my smoke outside and pay the fine, if indeed it even came to the citation part. Not really that big a deal.

As for chewing gum, what if it was politcally correct to PROHIBIT it because someone decided it was a health hazard (oh my gosh, how many children have choked on it or got it tangled in their hair or left it on the bedpost to collect who knows how many nasty germs :eek:) Sounds ridiculous, huh?

I agree with John that the do gooders should obtain and manage lives of their own and stay out of the lives of others. I applaud those of you who don't even smoke and still realize this isn't about smoking. It's an affront to personal and private business freedoms. :smk3:

pdc

12-08-2009, 02:00 PM

Wikipedia has self-correction mechanisms, and most articles, including thise I cited, are sourced/footnoted....

On controversial issues, Wikipedia identifies topics that has unsubstantiated or suspicious information....

Something can be not entirely legal and not result in automatic jailing....

saw

12-08-2009, 08:15 PM

pdc: First I will take you back to my Boy Scout Handbook from almost 60 years ago that advises you to stand upwind of the campfire. Next a bloodhound can not smell you if you are downwind of him ten foot if there is any kind of breeze at all. So it is this simple, set your non-smokers upwind of the smokers. The direction of the air flow is very simple. You do your supply air upstream of the non-smokers and your exhaust air downwind of your smokers. Some of the more complicated methods are wind curtains. They are the methods that keep insects from coming thru drive in windows and also are used in malls where you see the big open store fronts that open up into the mall hall. If a bug can not fly thru an open window or a store front, do you really think that smoke will flow thru that wind curtain and create a health hazard.

A wild animal can not smell you if your are downwind of it five foot if you have any air movement so why do you think that us humans can react to tobacco smoke that is being produced downwind of us. This is so simple that I can not believe that you are asking me how it can be done.

I have witnessed, however, a lady at Popos, that ran out of Popos coughing, hacking, and declaring that she was about die because she saw a man about to lite a cigarette. The man never lite the cigarette and just put in back in the pack and then asked "I wonder what would have happen if I had lite the cigarette"?

This is the way that we did away with the SO2 on the work floor of the smelter. We provided a source of fresh supply air on the work foor and exhausted the air away from the areas around the furnances. First grade simple. Any questions, please feel free to ask.

Later I will tell why OSHA has not outlawed smoking in the workplace if you want to know.