By MICHAEL FELBERBAUM, AP Tobacco Writer Nov 10, 2010
RICHMOND, Va. – Corpses, cancer patients and diseased lungs are among the images the federal government plans for larger, graphic warning labels that would take up half of each pack of cigarettes sold in the United States.
Whether smokers addicted to nicotine will see them as a reason to quit remains a question.
The images are part of a new campaign announced by the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services on Wednesday to reduce tobacco use, which is responsible for about 443,000 deaths per year.
"Some very explicit, almost gruesome pictures may be necessary," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in an interview with The Associated Press. "This is a very, very serious public health issue, with very, very serious medical consequences," such as cancer, heart disease, strokes and lung diseases.
The share of Americans who smoke has fallen dramatically since 1970, from nearly 40 percent to about 20 percent, but the rate has stalled since about 2004. About 46 million adults in the U.S. smoke cigarettes.
In the same period, the average cost per pack has gone from 38 cents to $5.33. Much of those increases are from state and federal taxes.
It's unclear why declines in smoking have stalled. Some experts have cited tobacco company discounts or lack of funding for programs to discourage smoking or to help smokers quit.
The new prevention plan is part of a law passed in June 2009 that gave the FDA authority to regulate tobacco, including setting guidelines for marketing and labeling, banning certain products and limiting nicotine. The law doesn't let the FDA ban nicotine or tobacco.
The FDA is proposing 36 labels for public comment. They include phrases like "Smoking can kill you" and "Cigarettes cause cancer" and feature graphic images to convey the dangers of tobacco.
"It acts as a very public billboard because you all of the sudden are reading something about lung cancer from that pack behind the cash register, whereas before you were just reading 'Marlboro,'" said David Hammond, a health behavior researcher at the University of Waterloo in Canada, who is working with the firm designing the labels for the FDA.
Some of the labels include a man with a tracheotomy smoking a cigarette, a cartoon of a mother blowing smoke in her baby's face, rotting and diseased teeth and gums, as well as cigarettes being flushed down the toilet to signify quitting.
The agency will select the final labels in June after reviews of scientific literature, public comments and results from an 18,000-person study. Cigarette makers will then have a year and three months to start using the new labels.
The new warning labels are to take up the top half of a pack — both front and back — of cigarettes and contain "color graphics depicting the negative health consequences." Warning labels also must constitute 20 percent of advertisements.
In recent years, more than 30 countries or jurisdictions have introduced labels similar to those proposed by the FDA. The U.S. first mandated the use of warning labels stating "Cigarettes may be hazardous to your health" in 1965.
While it is impossible to say how many people quit because of the labels, Hammond said every source of evidence suggests that the labels do spur people to quit.
Canada introduced similar warning labels in 2000. Since then, its smoking rates have declined from about 26 percent to about 20 percent. How much the warnings contributed to the decline is unclear because the country also implemented other tobacco control efforts.
The labels should shock people and be effective in deterring smokers, but how much is the question, said Marvin Goldberg, the Bard professor of marketing at Pennsylvania State University.
"There's no silver bullet. Will this wipe out smoking? No, but it will put a dent in it," Goldberg said.
Graphic labels "are tremendously effective," said Stanton Glantz, a tobacco researcher at the University of California at San Francisco. He said the argument that the warning labels are offensive, so people ignore them, has been cooked up by cigarette companies.
If that were true, the tobacco industry wouldn't be fighting them so hard, Glantz said.
Reynolds American Inc., parent company of the nation's second-largest cigarette maker, R.J. Reynolds, is reviewing the labeling plan. But spokesman David Howard said the legality of the new labels is part of a pending federal lawsuit filed by the company, No. 3 cigarette maker Lorillard Inc. and others.
The tobacco makers in the suit had argued the warnings would relegate the companies' brands to the bottom half of the cigarette packaging, making them "difficult, if not impossible, to see."
Anti-tobacco advocates are applauding the federal campaign and the new warning labels.
"This is going to stop kids from starting to smoke ... and it's going to give smokers a strong incentive to quit smoking," said Patrick Reynolds, grandson of R.J. Reynolds and executive director of the Foundation for a Smokefree America. Reynolds' father, brother and other relatives died from smoking-related illnesses.
Smokers themselves were skeptical that the labels would have much effect.
"I don't think they're going to be a deterrent at all for people who already smoke. Most people start smoking when they're young, and I don't think they're going to think about the effects," said 27-year-old Zak Hoffman of Cincinnati, who has been smoking since he was 14.
"I think more tax increases would have more of an effect than scare tactics," said 20-year-old Gina Gatano, a student who works at a downtown Cincinnati coffee shop.
*************** Found this picture on the pack I bought today ... I screamed like a little girl, but thank goodness the smoke calmed me down.
I love this idea. We now need to extend it, however.
We need pictures of babies on condoms. We need pictures of livers on all bottles of alcohol. We need pictures of dismembered human remains wrapping the full exterior of every vehicle on the road. All fast food needs to have images of nude, morbidly obese bodies. All fresh food needs to have images of the cancers that come from pesticides. All beef should have images of a Mad Cow infected bovine brain.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Quote: It's unclear why declines in smoking have stalled. Some experts have cited tobacco company discounts or lack of funding for programs to discourage smoking or to help smokers quit.
Or maybe we are down to the older life long smokers who don't see a point, or can't, in quitting now.
A better study would show the smoking decline in age groups, as those groups grow older.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: I love this idea. We now need to extend it, however.
We need pictures of babies on condoms. We need pictures of livers on all bottles of alcohol. We need pictures of dismembered human remains wrapping the full exterior of every vehicle on the road. All fast food needs to have images of nude, morbidly obese bodies. All fresh food needs to have images of the cancers that come from pesticides. All beef should have images of a Mad Cow infected bovine brain.
LOL
Where was the warning picture when I started following Cleveland sports?
Seriously, they can put all the pictures they want on the packs, people just won't look at them or won't think it will affect their lives. No smoker I've ever know, including me, ever thought they were going to die/get sick from smoking.
I officially quit over 10 years ago and didn't need a picture to help me make that decision (though I'll have one when I'm really drunk though).
“...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
Quote: I love this idea. We now need to extend it, however.
We need pictures of babies on condoms. We need pictures of livers on all bottles of alcohol. We need pictures of dismembered human remains wrapping the full exterior of every vehicle on the road. All fast food needs to have images of nude, morbidly obese bodies. All fresh food needs to have images of the cancers that come from pesticides. All beef should have images of a Mad Cow infected bovine brain.
What image should we put on the envelope of a welfare check?
Quote: It's unclear why declines in smoking have stalled. Some experts have cited tobacco company discounts or lack of funding for programs to discourage smoking or to help smokers quit.
Or maybe we are down to the older life long smokers who don't see a point, or can't, in quitting now.
A better study would show the smoking decline in age groups, as those groups grow older.
Perhaps its just because some people are ALWAYS going to do stupid crap like this and you reach a point of diminishing returns with your investment... If I can spend $1,000,000 and get 200,000 kids to NOT start smoking but then I have to spend another $1,000,000 to get the next 20,000 kids to not start smoking, at some point the investment isn't worth it because some people are just going to be stupid no matter how hard you work to stop them.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
That was the most asinine, ignorant, and maddening things I have read in quite a while.
Just another example of the Government trying to tell you how to live your life. I don't smoke....except maybe a cigar once in a blue moon...maybe even less than that.....But I fully stand behind someones right to smoke. I hate these smoking laws in this state and other states. I think it is absolutely ridiculaous that a person cannot smoke in a Bar......IN A FREAKING BAR!!!!!
You know what...the only logical argument I have heard concerning the controlling of smoking is 2nd hand smoke(which has not truly been proven) and the cost of healthcare.
Well the first can be controlled....You simply have rooms you can smoke in and rooms you don't for those who don't wish to have smoke...and then do a better job of keeping the air separated...a half wall doesn't do it...
The second....well that is an expense that should be taken on by the user. If they take the risk of smoking...they take the risk of putting their health in danger and they can pay the costs involved with that.....Higher premiums for insurance (maybe even more than now) and possibly denied coverage by the Government....sounds harsh...but no one forced that cigarette into your mouth....
I also find it ridiculous....They place a tax on cigarettes (after they have alreasdy spent the money they are to raise from the tax)...and then they try to lower the amount of cigarettes bought with their crusades......Does that make sense to anyone.....It is like California...they want to Ban Happy Meals because it is Bad for Children but they want to legalize marijuana......
As Triv says......I am truly living in a world I don't understand
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
My wife and I quit smoking a year-and-a-half ago, cold turkey, after smoking a pack a day for 18 years. Was it the warning labels on the packages that caused me to want to quit? Hell no, I didn't even notice those things on the package anymore. What finally made me quit was hearing a story on the radio about how taxes were going up on them yet again. I was tired of sending our money up in smoke and thought , "Screw this, I'm done." Best decision I have ever made.
That was the most asinine, ignorant, and maddening things I have read in quite a while.
Just another example of the Government trying to tell you how to live your life. I don't smoke....except maybe a cigar once in a blue moon...maybe even less than that.....But I fully stand behind someones right to smoke. I hate these smoking laws in this state and other states. I think it is absolutely ridiculaous that a person cannot smoke in a Bar......IN A FREAKING BAR!!!!!
People still have the right to smoke.
Frankly, I hate the idea of a nanny state government as much as the next guy, but the ban on smoking in [indoor] public places is a great law. (speaking specifically of Ohio, but similar bans are going up all over the place).
There are a lot of points to bring up here so I'll just name a few. The well established dangers of second-hand smoke-- i.e. just the act of smoking inherently threatens the well-being of the people around you (of course, this is an accumulative effect). Or how about that it's just plain nasty, smells terrible, and gets on everybody's clothes? Some people have asthma and it's a very real IMMEDIATE safety concern. Or perhaps there are kids around who plain and simply should not be exposed to it. (Most bars serve food and most restaurants have bars).
There are other issues as well.. e.g. worker's rights.
Quote: You know what...the only logical argument I have heard concerning the controlling of smoking is 2nd hand smoke(which has not truly been proven) and the cost of healthcare.
Well the first can be controlled....You simply have rooms you can smoke in and rooms you don't for those who don't wish to have smoke...and then do a better job of keeping the air separated...a half wall doesn't do it...
The second....well that is an expense that should be taken on by the user. If they take the risk of smoking...they take the risk of putting their health in danger and they can pay the costs involved with that.....Higher premiums for insurance (maybe even more than now) and possibly denied coverage by the Government....sounds harsh...but no one forced that cigarette into your mouth....
Restaurants in Ohio used to have smoking sections; in practice it really didn't matter since the sections were not more than a few feet apart anyway and smoke has a way of traveling across rooms, getting into ventilation systems, etc. You bring up a good point about better separation but in practice I'm not so sure how well that would work.
I won't even get into the healthcare aspect of it, but suffice it to say, smokers raise the cost of health care for everyone.
Quote: I also find it ridiculous....They place a tax on cigarettes (after they have alreasdy spent the money they are to raise from the tax)...and then they try to lower the amount of cigarettes bought with their crusades......Does that make sense to anyone.....It is like California...they want to Ban Happy Meals because it is Bad for Children but they want to legalize marijuana......
(Writing about smoking here) with something like a half million preventable deaths a year in the US alone, maybe it's ok for the gov't to try to step in and curtail it. Think about it.
Do they really???? I beg to differ......people have a very limited freedom to smoke. But not a right...as evidenced by the recent laws.
Quote: Frankly, I hate the idea of a nanny state government as much as the next guy, but the ban on smoking in [indoor] public places is a great law.
You cannot pick and choose what the government can be nanny about. I can understand a stance that 2nd hand smoke is detrimental to another person and therefore a violation of that persons rights....but using the term "nanny state" leads me to believe that you think this law is part of the government trying to force people(albeit in a slow gentle way) to live in a certain "enlightned way" that they know best and us poor ignorant slobs cannot determine for ourselves. So if you think it is nanny state legislation..regardless if is good or not...it is still a bad law.
Quote: but similar bans are going up all over the place
I'll use the tested and true "if your frieds jumped off a bridge " argument here...
Quote: just the act of smoking inherently threatens the well-being of the people around you
No, there is still scientific debate on that. there is the assumption and it is a good assumption but it has not been proven that 2nd hand smoke has caused any cancers(Unless you are speaking of asthma and other non life threatening conditions...I admit I am not quite up on that research)
Quote: Or how about that it's just plain nasty, smells terrible, and gets on everybody's clothes?
Phew!!!! you dang right...thing I always hated about smoking and smokers....but does that warrant a law that bans it from practically every public place???? Some places, understandable...but a Bar????Really???
Quote: Restaurants in Ohio used to have smoking sections; in practice it really didn't matter since the sections were not more than a few feet apart anyway and smoke has a way of traveling across rooms, getting into ventilation systems, etc.
The prior separation between smoking and non smoking sections was a joke. At worst I think the owner of the rest./bar should have the choice to take on the expenses of accomodating smoking non smoking areas in a better manner....or going non smoking...or possibly going smoking only(this last may be too easy a route)....people have a choice to go to those places and they can choose not to go there as well.
Quote: (Writing about smoking here) with something like a half million preventable deaths a year in the US alone, maybe it's ok for the gov't to try to step in and curtail it. Think about it.
I did think about it....and I have to say...is it really that such a Great thing??????.....Yes and no....sure we live longer because we don't smoke...but we go bankrupt because we are over populated with seniors, who can't get jobs, need more medical care than anyone else, pull from SS longer....etc.....I'm just saying....There are repurcussions to every action. People living and dying is a part of life...it's not necessarily a good or bad thing.
I would be interested in seeing numbers on the cost of healthcare directly related to smoking in comparison to the cost of healthcare for the elderly...I am not so sure which would be bigger
People know the hazards of smoking.....they know the risks....If they choose to take that risk and endanger themselves...who are you to stop them???
This issue is not about "saving lives"....it is about personal, individual freedoms and choices.
I lost my Grandfather to emphysema caused in part by his smoking(but not totally) Would I have wanted him around for more years. Absolutely. But that was HIS choice. We HAVE those choices. We should cherish them....protect them....defend them..........It is a sad day indeed when we voluntarily give them away in the guise that the Government "knows better".
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
When they started putting warning labels on smokes, I remember getting a pack that stated "could cause low birth weight and miscarriages" or some thing similar. My buddies and I would joke, "This pack's OK!! It only affect preggos".
I could see these new packs being like trading cards. "I'll give you two black lungs for a emphazemic."
Maybe applying the 'nanny' label wasn't the best idea. I tend to think of a 'nanny state' as a government/law that tries to protect people from themselves. Again, smoking isn't banned and I'm not suggesting that it should be, rather that it shouldn't be allowed indoors in public places.
Just the act of smoking itself forces the habit (and carbon monoxide, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, etc.) onto other people.
I'm happy to see that you think it's understandable to ban it in certain places. And honestly, I'm not sure why a bar or restaurant would be an exception. I understand that people like to smoke while they drink and there's no problem with that, just take it outside. Most of the best bars have a patio or balcony of sorts, but regardless, the nonsmoker's right to breathe clean air should and does trump a smoker's "right" to smoke.
As a side note, I'm not sure why smoking is considered a right in the first place, considering there are thousands of activities, drugs, medications, and supplements that are nowhere near as dangerous as smoking (or second-hand smoke for that matter) yet are still illegal. But again, I'm not saying that smoking should be illegal-- just pointing out how laughable it is that people think they have a "right" to dump their filth on others.
Quote: I did think about it....and I have to say...is it really that such a Great thing??????.....Yes and no....sure we live longer because we don't smoke...but we go bankrupt because we are over populated with seniors, who can't get jobs, need more medical care than anyone else, pull from SS longer....etc.....I'm just saying....There are repurcussions to every action. People living and dying is a part of life...it's not necessarily a good or bad thing.
I would be interested in seeing numbers on the cost of healthcare directly related to smoking in comparison to the cost of healthcare for the elderly...I am not so sure which would be bigger
Honestly, I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this but as a general reply I can confidently say that smokers cost the health care system a lot of money, not that I am putting a whole lot of stock into that as a basis for my position.
(You're probably not going to like the source but it's pretty easy reading compared to studies and what not.)
Perhaps the best part:
Quote: Cigarette Prohibition
The claim that the government is attempting to bring back prohibition -- this time for cigarettes -- is a complete fabrication and utter nonsense. EPA's interest is to provide information to protect the nonsmoker from involuntary exposure to a hazardous substance. Having a choice to take a risk for themselves should not permit smokers to impose a risk on others.
I'm not a smoker, but all I know is theres nothing on TV that annoys me more than all of those "Truth" commercials...
I saw one the other day, and asked my dad (whos been smoking longer than I've been alive) If he were to get lung cancer... Is he going to sue Marborol, he said "No, why?" and I told him, because it's their fault that he got cancer...
At least that's what they want you to believe... I guess...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
They've had these in Canada for the last few years. I have been a smoker on and off over the last 4 or 5 years (off right now....and happy for it) but I can;t say the images ever made me not want to buy them.
They do, however, sometimes make you think about it and the negative effects of it. Perhaps the accumulation of these thoughts help make people quit. I dunno. Some I found made me think....others I thought were stupid.
Regardless of opinion or whether they work on certain people, they do bring to light facts about smoking. And adding pictures to words does improve impact.
Quote: I should be mortified but I think it's hilarious. Structural integrity!
Aside from the pathetic brainwashing PC crap in the story, it's just pathetic that it's in a FOURTH GRADE reading book.. Three Little Pigs in the 4th grade? Are you freakin' kidding me.. no wonder we are a nation of nincompoops.
Quote: Maybe applying the 'nanny' label wasn't the best idea. I tend to think of a 'nanny state' as a government/law that tries to protect people from themselves. Again, smoking isn't banned and I'm not suggesting that it should be, rather that it shouldn't be allowed indoors in public places.
Just the act of smoking itself forces the habit (and carbon monoxide, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, etc.) onto other people.
I'm happy to see that you think it's understandable to ban it in certain places. And honestly, I'm not sure why a bar or restaurant would be an exception. I understand that people like to smoke while they drink and there's no problem with that, just take it outside. Most of the best bars have a patio or balcony of sorts, but regardless, the nonsmoker's right to breathe clean air should and does trump a smoker's "right" to smoke.
As a side note, I'm not sure why smoking is considered a right in the first place, considering there are thousands of activities, drugs, medications, and supplements that are nowhere near as dangerous as smoking (or second-hand smoke for that matter) yet are still illegal. But again, I'm not saying that smoking should be illegal-- just pointing out how laughable it is that people think they have a "right" to dump their filth on others.
Smoking is a right and I find the holier than thou attitude as disgusting as you find smoking. You don't like smoke in restaurants, I understand and can live with that. As for bars that should be up to the bar owner and if you don't like the smoke in the bar you have 2 options find a non smoking bar or stay home.
Yeah your thumping your non smoking chest right now and talking about all the filth that gets all over you from smoking. Well just wait because whats next? No alcohol served in a bar? Hey stand outside of a bar at 2:00AM and see how many drunks get behind the wheel, they are endangering peoples immediate lives. Then maybe we can make it so obese people get their own section in restuarants, I mean why should I have my appetite ruined by some over weight disgusting person. Yeah the fat person has no rights, it's my right to not have to look at it, so maybe they can eat outside. Sounds rude doesn't it, well it's no different than the way you come off.
Bottom line is keep wishing these big brother laws to try control big companies down to individuals and eventually you too will be effected. If you think this game begins and ends with smoking then you are sadly mistaking.
I'm trying to imagine the founders sitting down ..... "Let's see ..... Life ... check ..... Liberty .... check ...... Pursuit of Happiness ..... check ..... after dinner smoke ....... check ......
In Ohio, several bars have gone back to quietly allowing smoking. I won't go to those bars, (when I am back to going to bars) and many people I know won't either. It is so nice going out and not heading home with my clothes, truck, and ultimately, house smelling like smoke afterwards.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Centerfield, for the most part I agree with your logic though I would disagree with some of the thought you use to support it...
Quote: As for bars that should be up to the bar owner and if you don't like the smoke in the bar you have 2 options find a non smoking bar or stay home.
I agree with you, especially that it SHOULD be up to the owner, but why should I have to make accomodations because of a bad habit I don't have?
Quote: Hey stand outside of a bar at 2:00AM and see how many drunks get behind the wheel, they are endangering peoples immediate lives.
Not sure where you are coming from.. that is already illegal.
Quote: why should I have to make accomodations because of a bad habit I don't have?
What accomodation are you making? The one where you are going into someone else's establishment and are free to leave and go elsewhere if you don't like it?
Should the establishment serve everything you like, too so that you don't have to accomodate the owner's taste in food?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Did you miss the part where I said I think the owner SHOULD get to decide? I believe we were headed in the right direction and non-smoking establishments WERE popping up but it's just not in the governments nature to let a problem fix itself when they can intervene and screw it up faster..
I'm just curious why he thinks it's HIS RIGHT to smoke in a bar.... I will get behind the bar owners right to run his establishment the way he wants but I cannot get behind his right to smoke in a bar.... so if you have 30 people in there comfortably shooting pool and hanging out without smoking he should be able to come in and stink up the whole place?
Quote: Should the establishment serve everything you like, too so that you don't have to accomodate the owner's taste in food?
No because most of them couldn't make a decent crab cake to save their lives... last thing I want is some half-assed bar crab cake...
You know the ONLY argument I can see concerning a ban towards smoking in any fashion is if smoking is a violation of another persons rights. And in certain situations....I can see how that can happen. As second hand smoke MIGHT cause health issues and there might be situations such as public transportation and other areas where a non smoker would have no choice but to be next to some one smoking(if there were no laws). However...When we are talking about establisments I do not see this as a violation in any way. Especially if the Owner of the establishent has the CHOICE to setup his esablishment for smokers/ and or non smokers in any combination they see fit. For the smoker or non smoker has a choice of whether or not to visit said establishment or not. They are not FORCED to visit the establishment. They can always vist a competitor that fits their liking.
Concerning the dangers of smoking.....We all do things that are dangerous to our bodies. We drive cars, operate heavy machinery, we play sports, we drink, we eat fatty foods. I am sorry but we do not live in bubbles of security. Bungee jumping, and sky diving....not very safe....they have caused numerous parylizations and deaths....driving cars....same thing....sports...oh geez...you want to talk about costly to the health care industry....How much do we spend on sports injuries per year and how many people do you hear always complaining about an old football injury they got 20 years ago in high school that is still bothering them and get treatment for...But it is not the same you might say...what about drinking and eating....those attack the body slowly like smoking and cause huge heathcare costs as well.....
We know this stuff has the possibility to hurt us.....But we still do it...We know the risks.....yet still we imbibe.
Well smokers and non smokers alike know the risks of smoking....and since they do...they also have the choice of wheter to face those risks. If we need to make laws....we need to make them so that they do not have to be forced to take those risks...and going into a Bar or Restaurant is a choice...not something that is forced upon someone. Certain public places may need to be nonsmoking....groceries, public transportation, or such....BUT outside of a few areas...an establishment should have the CHOICE on how to setup and run his or her businees.
If that means have an smoking and non smoking section...then I suggest that we have stricter regulations concerning the standards of how those sections are separated. As long as we can make it easily maintainable (as well as low cost to maintain) Because I think you will find that now that Bars and restaurants have been nonsmoking for a while that they see there is a market for the non smoking patron and it would be worth the initial costs.
So I maintain the old adage that a persons rights extend until they infringe upon another's. So in a way....smoking is a right....In certain situations. And I definitely believe that one of those situations is where an establishment owner is given the right to decide on the smoking preferences of his/her estabishment and the patron is given the right to decide whether or not to visit that establishment.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
Ok, I missed the distinction in your previous comment.
No, nobody has a Right to smoke anywhere, I agree with that. However, if the owner of the establishment wishes to allow smoking, then by all means, yes, he now has the right to come in and stink it up because the owner has granted that to him.
Sadly, our government sucks canal water and can't keep its nose out of things it has no need to be in... so the rights of the bar owner are stomped on because the Govt knows what the owners patrons want more than the owner does. Actually, it's purely because the Govt is "at war" with smoking.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
Personally I think that Congress should have a warning label showing wallet in a pocket .... with someone trying to grab money from it.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Pete and Prp.. I'm essentially in agreement with both of you so unless the thread twists, I'm done here after this.
I believe that in a competitive environment, the owner should get to decide if his/her place is smoking or non-smoking.. By competitive I mean primarily bars and restaurants, places I think are NOT competitive would be a stadium.. I can't just go to a different Browns game because the guy downwind from me is smoking 17 cigarettes during the course of the game.. Other places I would put in that group would be theatres, airplanes, churches, etc..
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif)
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
![[Linked Image from i26.tinypic.com]](http://i26.tinypic.com/30vow7m.jpg)
I believe we were headed in the right direction and non-smoking establishments WERE popping up but it's just not in the governments nature to let a problem fix itself when they can intervene and screw it up faster.. 