Trying to couch this sort of ban under the "public health laws" fluff just doesn't wash and if you read and understood reply #24 you'd already know why so I don't understand why you continue along this line.

I guess because I don't think its a red herring. It makes perfect sense to me.

I have said numerous times I think there is a middle ground Mason. I would have VOTED for a middle ground law if one was on the table. But there wasn't.

I didn't mean to offend you.

Thanks for the debate.

Yes, you have but then you have also argued in favor of these sorts of bans so you are either for fascist bans or reasonable compromise, but you can't be for both.

HAHAHA.

Well actually, I can. I agree second hand smoke is harmful and so I also agree it is harmful to employees. I voted to ban it because there was no other alternative and I didn't want the constitutional amend for smoking to pass (essentially forcing me to breathe it whenever in public).

I do believe people who live in a state, the majority, have a right to make laws on how that state is run. Even if the amendment DID pass and smoking was made legal everywhere. I wouldn't agree with it, and wouldn't be eating out much, but I still think majority rules is a great system.

I can believe all those things, and still think accommodations can be made for smokers. Because I don't really care if you or any other adult chooses to smoke. So long as it doesn't effect me, its not my business. If places of employment want to take measures to protect their employees (like hiring smokers for smoking sections) then I am fine with that.

But starting Dec 7th in Ohio all indoor places are smoke free. There are still a few places for smoking under this new law. They are... tobacco stores, outdoor patios and private clubs. I just found that a few minutes ago. I read a lot of stuff for the elections, there were so many things to vote on. I musta forgot or missed these exceptions.

I can't speak for what went on in the whole state of Ohio. But I can tell you the smoking amendment was backed by R.J. Reynold’s and not individual citizens. The name of the amendment "Smoke Free Ohio" caught a lot of slack because people like Gov Taft said it was intentionally misleading....to get people to accidentally vote for it. That probably brought more people to the polls than the actual issue to be honest.

Anyway, you can come here and eat when the weather is nice and smoke on a patio. OR go to private clubs. And I think you will start seeing "smoking clubs" becoming really popular.

That's just my guess though.

But didn't you state that they were two different items? If so, voting for one had nothing at all to do with voting against the other.

Yes there were two items.

I voted to get rid of smoking because I don't smoke and don't like it, period. In fact, I hate it. Right now around here the only places that are smoke free are fast food chains. And the restaurants that have both have no real division of space at all. So the smokers, the minority, were getting all of what they wanted and the non smokers were getting McDonalds.

I voted for the ban because while it wasn't my ideal law, it still gave me more of what I wanted than how things are now.

Some people may go to the polls and vote altruistically. When I go, I vote my values....and since they usually aren't on the ballot, I vote as close as I can get.

You're right we are a free country. We are free to make laws and change them when we don't like them. I'm sorry, I don't consider smoking a right and I voted accordingly.

Screw other people, get what you want!

hahaha. Uh, yeah. Do you often vote for people and laws that go against what you believe?  

Isn't getting your say the whole point of voting?

At least be honest. If you cared, make them illegal

I have said over and over. I don't CARE if an adult chooses to smoke, they can poison themselves with cigarettes, 409, whatever. I only CARE when it effects my health, or my kids.

Because you are addicted to the tax revenue.

Oh yeah. Think I'll go buy me a big t-bone steak at a no smoking restaurant tonight with my ill gotten gains. Oh wait, we don't have any no smoking steak houses.   

As tongue in cheek as this article is, claiming that obesity is a victimless crime is wrong.

Obese people live shorter lives. They deprive their loved ones of the joy of being in their company for their selfish habit.

Obese people put undue strain on an already overpriced medial system. In turn, those of us who choose to eat sensibly and exercise pay a higher price for heath care.

Obese people require more resources. This has some measure of a cost to the general public because of the law of supply and demand.

I could find more ways that they have an effect on your life but that isn't my point.

Smoking is bad. It's bad for the smoker. It's bad for the family of a smoker. It costs the general public.

How long before the law makers find a reason to take obesity to the next level or any of the other of the societal ills. Think back to the 60's and 70's. Smoking was most certainly acceptable in all arenas. I think you could still smoke in hospitals in that era.

It only takes a majority vote to deprive you if your vice. Even if it's growing your own vegetables because the quality of them can't be verified.

banning cars

That doesn't seem all that far fetched since they do pollute the atmosphere. And, all of the petro chemical plants are such a danger even when you overlook the pollution they provide.