I‘m okay with most of the Legislature’s smoking in public places ban (login), which excludes bars but bans people from lighting up most everywhere else. I am a little irked with the “serves customers younger than 18″ language pertaining to bars. I’d be interested to see some stats on the number of those businesses that let in the under-18 crowd, because the ban is going to hurt them as it’s written. For instance, many sports bars let adults bring their kids in until late at night (the ones around here kick them out at 10 p.m.). So, it’s a no-win for them, because it means they’ll be forced to either turn away families or to turn away smokers, who are going to find somewhere else to go where they can light up. With that in mind, there’s the tobacco farmers to think about too. Tobacco is a substantial cash crop in Georgia, and to not leave smokers a haven somewhere is to say you don’t care about the livelihood of those people. The more restrictive the smoking ban, the harder it is for tobacco farmers to tread water. So, I would have liked to see the Legislature stay away from regulating bars more than it did. We’ll see the practical effects soon enough.
UPDATE: Sid thinks Governor Perdue will veto the smoking bill. Interesting… very interesting.
Tobacco is a substantial cash crop in Georgia, and to not leave smokers a haven somewhere is to say you don’t care about the livelihood of those people.
I can’t put my finger on it, but I don’t like your argument.
On one hand, I’m all about small farmers (though, let’s be honest most tobacco comes from big mega-farms, not your average family farm).
On the other hand, I’m not a big fan of government subsidies.
Now granted your argument doesn’t relate to government subsidies.. but why should I support an industry, which kills people, in order to save some jobs?
Ignoring subsidies, which complicates this argument, I’m guessing your objection to how I argued my point was I argued it like Republicans do.
Here’s the trap you just walked into, and why Democrats are going to have a hard time reconciling a pro-smoking ban position:
Republicans are against choice under every circumstance. Their ideology is consistent. If you’re for abortion but also for a cigarette ban, then your ideology is inconsistent. And the Republicans will prey on that. As they should.
No, I’m only anti-smoking for myself. If you want to smoke, go for it. If they want to grow tobacco, go for it. If people want to eat transfats, smoke, drink a liter of whiskey for breakfast and then run down the street holding a pair of scissors that’s their choice.. though, I would advise against the last part if they were drunk.
People who are pro-choice often say, “If you’re against abortion, don’t have one.” And I suspect there’s more than one smoker who has said during the session, “If you don’t like cigarette smoke, don’t smoke.” which would be a perfectly logical argument except that well, there’s second-hand smoke.
But yes, I’ll admit to being a little fascist when it comes to cigarette smoke. I actually would have preferred a ban like Gwinnett County’s, which said that if you installed one of those fancy air filtration systems (or whatever it’s called), you weren’t subject to the ban.
If someone who was pro-life came out and said they were against the smoking ban, I’ll tell you right now I would vote for that person over someone who was pro-choice and for the smoking ban. They all better tread carefully. Most smokers understand people don’t want to be subjected to second-hand smoke at restaurants and in their workplaces — and are willing to compromise as such — but if the Legislature messes with bars any more, there’s going to be payback at the polls. What’s there now is already too much regulation.
That doesn’t surprise me. Rarely does a person not vote for their self-interests.
imma little hung over from last night, but here’s why a pro-choice and pro-smoking ban candidate is RIGHT FOR YOU!
1) consistency on choice is the wrong way to approach this subject. you want to focus on rights.
a candidate who is pro-choice supports women’s rights and by supporting a smoking ban in public areas they are also supporting non-smokers rights to clean air.
yes - you have the right to smoke, but your right only extends so far until it is infringing on someone else’s right to breathe clean air.
same as: you have the right to have an abortion or not have an abortion, but you don’t have the right to start telling others to have or not to have an abortion.
holla
consistency on choice is the wrong way to approach this subject. you want to focus on rights.
I take it that’s how you want to approach it. I’ll approach it any way I damn well please.
I consider you a friend Mae, but if I find so much as one on-the-record statement in favor of that legislation from Hecht, I’m likely to abstain from voting in that race. And you know better than I do he’s going to need every vote he can find if he’s going to wimp out about going after Reed’s gambling junket.
The issue also has the potential to make the governor’s primary an easy choice. I have yet to hear either candidate speak on it.
Can someone be anti-ban in most circumstances? HAHA
I hate smoking, I think everyone that does it should quit, and I think family tobacco farmers, if there are any left, should be paid to get out of that business.
When I choose to go to a restaurant or even a bar, that doesn’t give other people the choice to throw their feces at me. So why should it give them the choice to breath their cigarette excrement on me also?
I’m with Jen on this one.
People don’t choose to get hit by drunk drivers out on the road either. Should we try to get alcohol banned, while we’re at it? That worked great last time.
No one’s trying to make smoking illegal (none of us, anyway). I choose to sit in the no-smoking section because I don’t want to smell smoke while I eat. If I choose to smoke, I move outside or . . . to the smoking area . . . so that I don’t fuck up other people’s dinner. I understand the purpose of the bill, but I don’t think it’s necessarily the best execution. For example, some restaurants have smoking sections that are totally separate from the non-smoking — as in, they are walled off with a door that SHUTS. I would prefer that the law mandated totally segregated smoking sections, or that you have smoke-eaters or the fancy-filtration system Jen mentioned, but I do not necessarily get my druthers here, since I would also prefer a child-free section. C’est la vie.
Oh, and not voting against Reed is somehow a crime. I’m working out the exact particulars, but for God’s sake man, it’s Ralph Reed we’re talking about here.
However I vote will be a mute point unless Hecht mans up and takes a poke at Reed over his gambling scandal. It’s probably a mute point either way, so it’s a good place for a protest vote.
I like going to see live music but I hate the fact that you can’t go to any venues without completely reeking of cigarette smoke.
You wonder why people call Dems opportunists. It’s okay for the government to regulate behavior when it meets your personal agenda (smoking), but not when it doesn’t (abortion). Call the Republicans anything you want otherwise, but at least their principles are consistent.
Their principles are consistent? What? They’re all for a culture of life — unless you’re a criminal, in which case you should be executed summarily? Consistent? Hello?
Abortion, as mae pointed out above, is about reproductive rights, not about “behavior.” Smoking is also about rights. I have a reasonable right to go to dinner and not be exposed to carcinogenic 2nd hand smoke. As I said, I don’t care if anyone else smokes, as long as I don’t have to breathe it. What part of segregated smoking areas wasn’t clear? Smoking is certainly part of a certain culture, and that’s fine — when I choose to partake of it, I understand that choice. But I don’t think that choosing to go to dinner somewhere other than my own home means I should have to gag over cigarette smoke.
My comment was aimed more at Chris, but I disagree with framing this as a right versus behavior. To me, it’s a question of letting the government tell you how you should live your life versus not letting the government tell you how to live your life. In all cases, I want the government out of my life. In all the cases mentioned above, Republicans are for letting the government run your life. That’s consistent. All the Democrats who’ve commented are choosing where they want regulation selectively according to what offends them. That’s inconsistent.
The added factor of second-hand smoke does mean there’s no perfect answer to the question of how far should the government be allowed to regulate where people can smoke versus where they can’t, which is why I’m okay with them keeping smoke out of restaurants (when less than 50 percent of their revenue comes from alcohol), office buildings, and most other places. I don’t have any sympathy for people whining about cigarette smoke in bars when most of the state’s land area has already been conceded to them.
To me, it’s a question of letting the government tell you how you should live your life versus not letting the government tell you how to live your life.
The government isn’t telling you how to live your life. No one’s stopping you from smoking a carton a day. They are not regulating YOUR BODY, which is a difference I think you’re failing to see.
In any event, I don’t know why you’re blaming the Democrats. They can’t get shit out of the legislature without Republican help. You wanna blame someone? Blame the Republicans. They’re the ones with control.
As a smoker, this is a very hard issue for me. I would like to first say that I believe I am a very conscientious smoker. Most of my friends are non-smokers, and I try to be accommodating to them. I do not smoke in my car when they ride with me or in my house when they are over, and sit in the non-smoking sections of restaurants when we go out to eat. But when we go somewhere that is all smoking (like a bar) that is their choice. They knew when they went in it allowed smoking. If you do not want to deal with the smoke, then don’t go. There are both restaurants and bars that do not allow smoking at all. If it is that big of an issue for you, go there. I choose not to, just as you can choose not to go to a smoking establishment. I am also very in favor of requiring the use of high powered smoke eater technology. It can be very effective and can create an almost smoke free environment. Bailey’s is a chain of bars that use this type of technology and it even clears the air of cigar smoke.
Then, I also see the public health side of the issue. Smoking and second-hand smoke kills. I have chosen to take my life slowly and painfully over a great number of years, but the non-smoker did not and should not have to help subsidize my medical treatment caused by my smoking. The problem there is that it is a slippery slope and who knows what other legal activity could be targeted next.
That is all very rambling and I still do not know where I come down on the issue.
You wanna blame someone? Blame the Republicans. They’re the ones with control.
I’m going to blame every legislator who voted for it, regardless of party. There were only votes listed through March 31 on the site when I looked, but keep your eyes open for who’ll be on my shitlist. I’m sure there’ll be some names included there that I’ve heaped praise on in the past.
Fair enough.