Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The smoking ban
Most folks believe the smoking ban will pass by a huge margin. I have to agree. That does not diminish my assertion that private businesses should be able to allow smoking if they wish. Customers who don't like smoke don't have to patronize those places and employees who don't wish to be exposed can find employment elsewhere.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I agree. If this thing passes I might have to start smoking again so I can go into bars a to smoke and protest this idiotic ban.
We as the party of personal responsibility will vote to pass this regardless of what they are saying in Pierre.
Steve Hickey said it best, "Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool." ip had to laugh like hell.
extro
Bad law, good result.
'ovesseas'
Here's our latest TV ad for SDDoH:
This isn't about freedom, Mike.
It's not about freedom at all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCVkovyebMg
Good production Bill. Is it all yours or do they give you the script?
Neal is right, bad law, good result.
Dept of Health could have done this on their own by enforcing a smoke free area in sections of public places. Not saying I agree with Health's czar tactics, just saying. Curious why they let it go to or sent it to a vote?
Bill,
The ad is wonderful. I smoke. I hate it. I'm addicted, just like you.
We cannot outlaw everything bad for us. Are trans fats next? Burgers that weigh more than 4 oz.? Beer, wine, Scotch? ADVERTISING?
I'm allergic to Kentucky Bluegrass, you have it growing in your yard. Must you kill it if it affects me adversely?
The world isn't going to come to an end over IM 12, more people will likely be healthier. Making it nearly impossible for a person to enjoy a legal product on private property is simply wrong and it gives government too much power.
Again, this IS about me having the FREEDOM to offer a place where people can enjoy a legal substance unmolested by government.
Hickey and Larry are right about "smoking sections."
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is futile...stupid even. Restaurants can't have smoke now unless they have a bar. There are very few restaurants of left in Rapid City who have a smoking section...truck stops, Kelly's and a few other bars. Many of the bars are going smokeless, because they've seen the results at Thirsty's, Dublin Square, 445 and others. When all bars are smokeless, will Thirsty's and Dublin Square be adversely affected by the ban?
Those who wish to provide a respite for the lowly smoker, should be able to do so without more interference from the government.
Otherwise, make the product illegal all together and quit subsidizing it and quit collecting tax on it.
I agree with Mike entirely on this.
Especially, "make the product illegal altogether"
Then we can rock 'n' roll.
I believe I could even get rich. Right before the Hermosa Cartel dismembered me.
Les, Suzie and I wrote it. My son Jake did the audio track (music, sound effects and voice). The kids are all from Rapid City (except for one stock image.)
Mike and Bob, shops that are exclusively or almost exclusively tobacco shops will still be able to allow smoking in them. That's how I understand it anyway.
I like what Jake did. I'm stuck in the days of 32 track analog and need to take a refresher.
No, Bill. Only those "smoke shops" that currently exist will be allowed "grandfathered". And, they can't relocate. And no new ones that would allow smoking may be opened.
Sounds like the Hookah lounge will probably get pretty busy then. Dang, Mike, maybe we shoulda bought that joint when it was up for sale, huh? (Just kidding.)
Here's what it says on the ballot, Mike:
"The ban does not apply to tobacco shops, hotel rooms designated as smoking rooms, and existing cigar bars."
I don't get that "existing" applies to anything except cigar bars. Is the ballot language faulty?
Post a Comment