Smoking ban goes in to effect Feb. 1st

On a related note, sales of Nicorette to skyrocket.

Restaurants will be the first to go cold turkey, but bars and taverns have a more generous 2-and-a-half year phasing period. If technology for air filtration catches up to the times, bars will be able to remain smoking with a proper filtration system in place.

One thing that caught me seriously off-guard in the NBC5 article was this… they had to specifically point out that private residences and private vehicles would be exempt from the ban. Um, yeah? I would certainly hope so…

10 Comments so far

  1. Ben (unregistered) on December 7th, 2005 @ 3:30 pm

    I’m not a smoker and I find this to be an outrage.

    A business should be allowed to decide whether they are a smoking or non-smoking establishment.

    Whatever happened to limited government? Oh, that’s right, it flew out the window when the welfare state walked in the door.

    Maybe one of these days we’ll be expected to take care of ourselves.

    It doesn’t look promising though…

  2. steven (unregistered) on December 7th, 2005 @ 5:12 pm

    I’m glad it finally went thru. It’s only a matter of time before most cities adopt similar measures…maybe we’ll even live in a smokeless society.

    And I did notice how they made sure to mention that private residences weren’t a part of the deal. Why mention it if it’s understood? Because if they didn’t, some paranoids would ask “Are private residences restricted as well?”

  3. Mr. Trimm (unregistered) on January 7th, 2006 @ 8:57 pm

    It’s about time! Supporting smoking in restaurants is the same thing as supporting Big Tobacco in general. I’d rather see the economy suffer over people dying.

  4. Ben (unregistered) on January 8th, 2006 @ 1:21 am

    I just wanted to repost Mr. Trimm’s comment in case anyone missed it.

    “It’s about time! Supporting smoking in restaurants is the same thing as supporting Big Tobacco in general. I’d rather see the economy suffer over people dying.”

    Wow. Does anyone else find that to be frightening?

  5. Not Ben (unregistered) on January 8th, 2006 @ 1:18 pm

    No Ben, for some strange right-wing reason, only you find frightening the prospect of valuing people’s lives over the economy.

  6. A. Marsh (unregistered) on January 9th, 2006 @ 1:54 am

    Banning smoking has to do with public health, period. It doesn’t have to do with sticking it to Big Tobacco. It doesn’t have to do with undermining a smoker’s right to inhale smoke into his/her own body.

    I was in Denver at a bar where the smoking area was completely encapsulated behind floor-to-ceiling glass. Everyone was happy!

  7. Ben (unregistered) on January 9th, 2006 @ 8:29 am

    Not Ben-

    I don’t value the economy over people’s lives, but I do value freedom. If someone OWNS a business, that means THEY own it, not the government. If I OWN a business and want patrons to be allowed to smoke, that’s my choice, not the governments. And if you don’t want to inhale second-smoke (which isn’t as harmful as some alarmists would have you believe), well, then you don’t have to go to that particular restaurant.

    The fact that you think supporting freedom is “some strange right-wing reason” is tripe and sort of pathetic.

  8. NOT WORTHLESS (unregistered) on January 15th, 2006 @ 9:59 pm

    Well the worthless liberals are at it again. well actually that was a redundant statement. all liberals are worthless. Anyways… this ban is rediculous. The people that support this ban know that it is wrong but they only care about themselves. they dont care about the smokers. they are not trying to help them and keep them “healthy”. This is just a bad as prohibition. all this ban does is piss people off and hurt business. Oh yeah, not to mention it takes away freedom which our country is supposedly built upon.

  9. sudont (unregistered) on January 24th, 2006 @ 9:38 pm

    Actually, people have already been sued for smoking in their own condo. These anti-smokers will never be satisfied. Soon, renters won’t be able to smoke in their apartment. Sound far-fetched? Did you know cigarettes had been banned in over a dozen states at one time? Don’t think the puritans can’t pull it off again. They started with elevators, and kept chipping away til now when you can’t even smoke in a bar. Who would’ve believed that ten years ago?
    These anti-smoker people have no compunction about lying to get their way. The study they keep using to pass these bans has been vacated by a federal judge who spent 92 pages outlining the fraud found in that study This whole business about so-called second-hand smoke is a lie. That’s why the WHO tried to suppress the findings of their SHS study.
    Find out the facts for yourselves. Try a Google search with these words: second hand smoke lies facts

  10. Ben2 (unregistered) on January 25th, 2006 @ 4:06 pm

    Second-Hand smoke does not cause cancer. It is smelly though.

    People have a choice whether to attend a restaurant. If the restaurant wants to anger the anti-smoking crowd and lose their business, they will allow smoking. Else they will lose smokers’ business. That is a CHOICE the businesses should have.

    As far as smoking, it is a personal choice. While I wish people would be more aware of its affects on those around them, when you remove choice from everyone you get a bunch of automatons. Let people choose to smoke or not, if they want to get cancer, sadly its their choice. I don’t agree the government should pay for their healthcare either. -shrugs-

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.