The bottom of a slippery slope
I had a chance to outline the slippery slope:
First they banned smoking on flights lasting less than two hours
Then on flights lasting less than six hours, except for international flights
Then on all flights, regardless of duration or destination
Then they banned smoking at the boarding lounge
Then anywhere at all inside the airport
I think this fairly describes the progression, more or less chronologically, and it's where things stand in most places in the US and Mexico (they may be different elsewhere).
So what's next?
Next they'll ban smoking anywhere on airport grounds
Then they'll ban smoking for 24 hours prior to taking a flight. All passengers will be subjected to random blood gas tests to determine their carbon monoxide levels. (don't I wish!)
After that smokers will be banned from all flights.
That should be the end of the list, but I'm sure I'm missing something....
BTW, smoking is still allowed inside private aircraft.
The Revel in Atlantic City is toying with the idea of opening up as a smoke free casino. They would get my business instantly.
Most of it is not much of a mystery though. If someone ate fattening food and spit blubber over the surrounding passengers all the time, we'd be taking action against that too.
Although if you're in a forest, where only you can hear a tree fall and make a sound, you could still start a forest fire. Though I do think the law becomes more and more pointless when no one else is around, or going to be around that would even care about it.
Quote: rxwineWhen people could smoke on planes, I'm not sure it was always confined to the back. I think that may have been the first measure against smoking. It's really just a series of moves of increasing alienation. And you could probably even smoke in the lavatories at first.
I can't tell you about the very first airliners, but in the 70s and 80s smoking was restricted to the back of each section. That means, though, therewas a smoking first class section, a smoking business class section, and a smoking coach section.
In all cases it was a felony to smoke in the lavatory. They ahd smoke detectors back then, too, and ashtrays on the outside fo the door. You coudln't smoke in the aisles, either, not even in the smoking sections. You had to be at a seat.
Quote:Most of it is not much of a mystery though
Yes it is. Why ban it altogether? Why not offer the airlines the choice of declaring, say, 5% of flights as smoking adn the rest (a tiny, insignificant 95%) as non-smoking.
But, ok. Airplanes are enclosed spaces with some recircualted air (there's an infussion of fresh air in all jets). But airports? Whole airports? The buildings are HUGE. Certainly there could be a walled off section or two where smoking were allowed, they could even charge an entry fee.
What I woudl like is an honest acknowledgement from non-smokers that they care about the smell of tobacco much more than to any possible negative effects on their health.
Okay, you got it. Cigarette smoke smells bad, it gets in your clothes and it's irritating to the eyes. Give yourself cancer, knock yourself out! Just don't make me have to do an extra load of laundry on vacation because some schmuck wanted to light up on my flight.Quote: NareedWhat I woudl like is an honest acknowledgement from non-smokers that they care about the smell of tobacco much more than to any possible negative effects on their health.
Quote: iwannaiguanaI'm all for smoking. If people want to slowly kill themselves and pay for it then they can go right ahead. It's kind of like a stupidity tax. Just don't make me have to deal with it. If you want to make designated smoking zones fine, but in my opinion smoking should be illegal in all public places. It probably will be before too long.
All public places? What about the bar owner who wants to cater to smokers? Then what if after you ban smoking someone or some group gets upset about the bar itself? Where does it end?
I dislike smoking but agree we have gone too far. And just wait for the new budget holes when the 1997 MSA expires about 2017.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/homeless_man_known_for_filing.html
Quote: NareedBut, ok. Airplanes are enclosed spaces with some recircualted air .
Don't give up! Would you be willing to put your head in an enclosed tube with negative air flow?
We also could put "smoking section" on the exit doors for those who need a smoke break during the flight. We might need an intermediary chamber though for some air pressure problems.
I might put up with a smoker, but we would have to have soccer movies showing the entire flight, and on all open lap tops.
Quote: rxwineI might put up with a smoker, but we would have to have soccer movies showing the entire flight, and on all open lap tops.
No worse than the stuff they show these days.
Quote: NareedWhat I woudl like is an honest acknowledgement from non-smokers that they care about the smell of tobacco much more than to any possible negative effects on their health.
I had a colleague who would send community emails reminding everyone that they could not smoke within 50 feet of building entrances, citing cancer risk. She constantly burned carcinogenic incense in her office.
Tax tobacco only enough to maximize profits, not so much that the habit is discouraged. Use the revenue to reduce income tax
How can anyone, either a smoker or non-smoker, not like the results from that direction?
With all the pollutants in today's world, I don't worry about second hand smoke causing me health problems. I take care of myself the best I can and the rest is out of my hands.
I would like an honest acknowledgement from the smokers among us. How do you dispose of your smoking materials? Do you flick your butts out the car window, throw them on the sidewalk etc? Why do you smoke? I'd really like to know what it does for you.
Quote: benbakdoffI despise smoking and I resent being subjected to it in any form.
People who weren't around in the 60's and 70's don't realize
you could smoke everywhere. Airplanes, grocery stores, hospitals,
factories, offices, restaurants. You couldn't smoke in a movie, but
you could in the lobby. There was always crushed out butts on the
floor everywhere you went, it was a way of life. Doctors office,
your bank, ashtrays were everywhere and nobody ever asked you
to put out your cigarette.
Quote: EvenBobPeople who weren't around in the 60's and 70's don't realize
you could smoke everywhere. Airplanes, grocery stores, hospitals,
factories, offices, restaurants. You couldn't smoke in a movie, but
you could in the lobby. There was always crushed out butts on the
floor everywhere you went, it was a way of life. Doctors office,
your bank, ashtrays were everywhere and nobody ever asked you
to put out your cigarette.
I was around in the 60's and 70's and even in the 50's and I remember all these scenarios. Here's a story that would probably not be believed by people who weren't around back then. The dentist I had as a kid was very good at what he did but he was a chain smoker. He had an ash tray on the tray next to the chair and would smoke the entire time he worked on me. This highly respected man lived well into his 80's.
Quote: benbakdoff
Do you flick your butts out the car window, throw them on the sidewalk etc?
I don't smoke (for the last 7 years), except for an occasional cigar.
But my car has an ash tray. I did smoke back when I bought it, and I had to pay extra to get the ash tray installed, because some righteous idiot working for the car company decided that nobody needs ash trays in the cars any more. It was not easy to get it installed. I had to go to three different dealers before I found one that would do it. I never smoked in that car, and never planned to.
I just refuse to put up with someone's stupidity and pay money for a product that got crippled to make some idiotic point.
Now the same people, that wanted ash trays out of the cars, are complaining about butts out of the car windows. You cannot have it both ways. No ash trays in cars means butts on the roadway. No trash cans on the streets means trash on the sidewalk. it is that simple. Most people are not pigs, and won't litter on purpose, but there is only so much extra distance you can make someone walk in order to work around somebody else's hostile stupidity.
Quote:Why do you smoke? I'd really like to know what it does for you.
It's the same reason you drink beer. People find it enjoyable, that's all.
I just came from California where smoking is banned at public beaches, which I applaud.
Quote: NareedYes it is. Why ban it altogether? Why not offer the airlines the choice of declaring, say, 5% of flights as smoking adn the rest (a tiny, insignificant 95%) as non-smoking.
First, I'm sure the airline industry will fight for a greater than 5% share. Once they get their foot in that door, expect the share to climb to 50% or higher. Then non-smokers will be put in a situation all the time where they only flights they can get from point A to B for the dates they need are all smoking flights.
When business have the choice to be smoking or non-smoking, they always choose to allow smoking. The number of casinos and bars that voluntarily ban smoking in Nevada? As far as I know, that number is zero. It goes to show that private industry cannot be trusted to make options available to non-smokers. The role of government should be to protect public safety. Since the private sector is doing a horrible job of it, government must step in to protect the rights of non-smokers.
Quote: Wizard
First, I'm sure the airline industry will fight for a greater than 5% share. Once they get their foot in that door, expect the share to climb to 50% or higher.
Why would they? They are businesses, and their goal is naturally to please their customers.
Are you saying that you think 50% or more people would actually prefer a smoking flight?
If that really is the case, would it not be only fair to accommodate those people instead of pacifying the minority at their expense?
Quote:Then non-smokers will be put in a situation all the time where they only flights they can get from point A to B for the dates they need are all smoking flights.
I don't get it. It would happen only if either the airline has way more smoking flights than needed, which would be plain stupidity on their behalf or there is only a tiny fraction of people who actually what a non-smoking flight, so that it does not make sense for the airline to have it.
By your logic, how come not all hotel rooms are smoking? How come I have never had a problem booking a non-smoking room in a hotel?
Quote:When business have the choice to be smoking or non-smoking, they always choose to allow smoking.
This is completely untrue. If you ran a business, would you allow smoking? :)
Somewhere earlier in this same thread, there is a mention of an AC casino that considers going smoke free.
There were plenty of non-smoking restaurants where I live (and in other areas I visited) way before the smoking in restaurants was banned altogether.
If customers prefer a non-smoking environment, it would be a suicidally stupid decision for a business not to accommodate them. Businesses that a run by suicidally stupid people will simply die naturally.
Quote: weaselmanWhy would they? They are businesses, and their goal is naturally to please their customers.
Are you saying that you think 50% or more people would actually prefer a smoking flight?
If that really is the case, would it not be only fair to accommodate those people instead of pacifying the minority at their expense?
What would happen is the airlines would compete for the smoking customers by offering more and more smoking flights. They know that smokers like smoking more than non-smokers dislike it. Case in point, look at the casinos. Most customers don't smoke, and most US casinos can choose to allow smoking or not. How many casinos choose to prohibit smoking? As far as I know that percentage is 0%. Maybe the ratio of customers who smoke is higher in casinos than airplanes, but I don't think it is significantly more.
Quote: weaselmanI don't get it. It would happen only if either the airline has way more smoking flights than needed, which would be plain stupidity on their behalf or there is only a tiny fraction of people who actually what a non-smoking flight, so that it does not make sense for the airline to have it.
By your logic, how come not all hotel rooms are smoking? How come I have never had a problem booking a non-smoking room in a hotel?
The smokers would seek out the flights that allow smoking, creating increased demand for them. Meanwhile, the non-smokers are more complacent, and will also factor in cost and convenience, often resulting in suffering through a smoking flight.
The hotel rooms is a bad comparison because a hotel can split them up between smoking and non-smoking. An airplane, restaurant, or casino has to be entirely smoking or non-smoking.
Quote: weaselmanThis is completely untrue. If you ran a business, would you allow smoking? :)
Somewhere earlier in this same thread, there is a mention of an AC casino that considers going smoke free.
There were plenty of non-smoking restaurants where I live (and in other areas I visited) way before the smoking in restaurants was banned altogether.
If customers prefer a non-smoking environment, it would be a suicidally stupid decision for a business not to accommodate them. Businesses that a run by suicidally stupid people will simply die naturally.
It would depend on the business. I would try my best to prohibit smoking, even at the cost of less profits, but I could only stretch so far with that. As I said, smokers like smoking more than non-smokers dislike it. You lose all the smokers by banning it, and they will probably not be replaced by the same number of non-smokers.
Quote: thecesspitI'm relatively sure if smoking was not banned, smoking on planes wouldn't make a come back. There's too many people who dislike it now, and its much less of a common habit. A five percent of flight rule? Crazy.
I agree. The ban could be lifted entirely, and, I am pretty sure there would be no "smoking flights", except, maybe, a couple small airlines here and there. I don't smoke, and could care less about airlines allowing or not allowing smoking on their planes. I just think, it is none of the government's business to tell private businesses how to serve their customers.
Quote: weaselmanI just think, it is none of the government's business to tell private businesses how to serve their customers.
A lot of thing aren't the government's business, but they tend to stick their noses in it anyway.
Quote: WizardWhat would happen is the airlines would compete for the smoking customers by offering more and more smoking flights.
Why would they not want to compete for non-smoking customers though, by offering more non-smoking flights?
If you want to fly somewhere, and American only offers smoking flights, while Jet Blue has a non smoking one, which one would you choose?
Quote:They know that smokers like smoking more than non-smokers dislike it.
I don't think, this is the case.
I know a lot of smokers, that actually prefer non-smoking hotel rooms, non-smoking restaurant seats, etc. It is an incorrect assumption that only nonsmokers hate tobacco smoke smell. Almost everybody does. Many smokers will much rather not be allowed to smoke for a few hours than be subjected to heavy tobacco clouds (and, especially, that disgusting heavy old tobacco odor) for that same period of time.
What I am saying is, there are lots and lots of smokers who would rather fly in a non-smoking flight, while none of the non-smokers would prefer a smoking one. In other words, your last statement is opposite to the truth :)
Quote:Case in point, look at the casinos. Most customers don't smoke, and most US casinos can choose to allow smoking or not. How many casinos choose to prohibit smoking? As far as I know that percentage is 0%. Maybe the ratio of customers who smoke is higher in casinos than airplanes, but I don't think it is significantly more.
There are non-smoking sections in casinos.
Going completely smoke-free means losing like half of the customers on the spot. A manager running the business would have to be either an imbecile or an entirely crazy "health nut" to make such a decision. But a casino, run by an imbecile would probably not stay in business for very long to begin with, and that is an explanation for why there are no non-smoking casinos :)
Quote:The hotel rooms is a bad comparison because a hotel can split them up between smoking and non-smoking. An airplane, restaurant, or casino has to be entirely smoking or non-smoking.
That was not a comparison. I compare an airline to a hotel. Some hotel rules could be smoking, just like some airline flights. As for restaurants or casinos, no, they don't have to be entirely non-smoking, there is no reason for that.
They can have smoking and non-smoking areas, just like hotels.
Quote: weaselmanI just think, it is none of the government's business to tell private businesses how to serve their customers.
Maybe it is just me, but I'm glad the government is telling private business to offer a safe product to their customers. I'm glad there are regulators sticking their noses into farms and ranches to make sure the food is safe. I'm glad they inspect restaurants to make sure they are clean and the food is prepared in a safe manner.
Too little regulation and the next you think you there will be toxins in the milk.
Quote: WizardMaybe it is just me, but I'm glad the government is telling private business to offer a safe product to their customers. I'm glad there are regulators sticking their noses into farms and ranches to make sure the food is safe. I'm glad they inspect restaurants to make sure they are clean and the food is prepared in a safe manner.
Too little regulation and the next you think you there will be toxins in the milk.
This is different. Tobacco being legal means that in the eyes of government it is supposed to be "safe enough". Since it is "safe enough", the purpose of the regulation is not to ensure safety, but rather to force the business cater to wishes of one class of people at the expense of the others (and at their own). This is not capitalism.
I would have no problem whatsoever with tobacco being outlawed altogether, like asbestos or cocaine. *That* would be an action similar to what you describe, and very different from what is happening with all the tobacco bans now.
Quote: weaselman
I don't think, this is the case.
I know a lot of smokers, that actually prefer non-smoking hotel rooms, non-smoking restaurant seats, etc. It is an incorrect assumption that only nonsmokers hate tobacco smoke smell. Almost everybody does. Many smokers will much rather not be allowed to smoke for a few hours than be subjected to heavy tobacco clouds (and, especially, that disgusting heavy old tobacco odor) for that same period of time.
What I am saying is, there are lots and lots of smokers who would rather fly in a non-smoking flight, while none of the non-smokers would prefer a smoking one. In other words, your last statement is opposite to the truth :)
I smoke and I agree with what you said. When I go to a restaurant(that still has smoking/non-smoking areas) I seek out non-smoking. I'd rather not smell the smoke while I'm trying to eat and I can surely wait for my after meal cig. until I get outside.
There are so many places that you cannot smoke inside, that when I do smoke inside a place(like a casino)it seems weird to me. I try to be as considerate as possible to non-smokers; I know they don't like the smoke, so I try to avoid smoking in close proximity to them.
Quote: WizardRegarding airports, I think smoking should be confined to designated smoking rooms, like they have at the Las Vegas airport.
I can positively state there's no such thing in terminal 2 at McCarran. You can only smoke outside the buiding.
Quote:I just came from California where smoking is banned at public beaches, which I applaud.
Really. Wide open space, constant breeze, lots of room...
Quote:First, I'm sure the airline industry will fight for a greater than 5% share.
In the second place, most likely the airline industry would not even take advantage of the opportunity. Since airlines can reduce the influx of engine-bleed air in non-smoking fligths, they save a significant amount of fuel by not allowing smoking. If they did, I bet they'd charge extra.
In the early days of the smoking bans, some people launched an airline called Freedom Air which would allow smoking. It flopped, but I've no idea why. lots of airlines flop for lots of reasons.
And in the first place, the prejudice is against smokers these days.
Quote:When business have the choice to be smoking or non-smoking, they always choose to allow smoking. The number of casinos and bars that voluntarily ban smoking in Nevada? As far as I know, that number is zero. It goes to show that private industry cannot be trusted to make options available to non-smokers. The role of government should be to protect public safety. Since the private sector is doing a horrible job of it, government must step in to protect the rights of non-smokers.
There are two points here:
1) Ask yourself hwy businesses allow smoking when give the chance
2) The governmetn is defending the prejudice of the non-smoking majority, sometimes to ridiculous lenghts.
Quote: weaselmanThis is different. Tobacco being legal means that in the eyes of government it is supposed to be "safe enough". Since it is "safe enough", the purpose of the regulation is not to ensure safety, but rather to force the business cater to wishes of one class of people at the expense of the others (and at their own). This is not capitalism.
Tobacco is not "safe enough." It kills 443,000 Americans per year (source). Compare that to American casualties in Afghanistan, which are in the low thousands. Still, I don't support banning tobacco, because I believe everyone should have the right to do what they wish to their own body. However, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
It is a role of government to ensure safety in public places. Secondhand smoke kills about 3,400 Americans per year (source). Contrary to what the Tea Party may believe, there IS a proper roll for government beyond military reasons. One of them is to ensure public places are safe, and anywhere with secondhand smoke is most definitely not safe.
- First, you would have to get around TSA and NTSB's requirements around open flames on planes and the safety issues around smoking in general on flights.
- Second, you eliminate 80% of the market with non-smokers. Therefore, I could not see more than 1 flight a day going to a major destination where smoking would be offerred. So, for example, if 1,000 / day fly from JFK to LAS on American, perhaps you could fill one plane with smokers. That said, the smokers would need to prefer smoking over time-of-day and airline.
- Thirdly, when that plane becomes a non-smoking plane, a great deal of cleaning needs to be done. You would also need to change the in-flight videos and safety placards as well.
- Fourth, you would have a fleet of smoking airplanes and a fleet of non-smoking airlines, staffed by smoking flight-attendants (imagine the lawsuits filed by non-smoking flight attendants forced to work on a smoking plane). Imagine the state laws that need to be overcome regarding smoking in public spaces; does that state law apply to a plane overhead?
It ain't going to happen, folks.
Incidentally, the Muckleshoot (tribal) casino in Auburn, WA has an entire non-smoking building full of pit games and machines.
Quote: slytherOne thing I've always found interesting is that generally smoking is allowed in casinos (maybe a few tables are designated non-smoking) but every poker room I've been in is (thankfully) non-smoking.
I applaud those casinos that prohibit smoking in poker rooms for doing so. In poker you have ten players, plus the dealer, crammed around a table. There isn't much elbow room, and the spaces between tables is also about as small as possible. So if they allowed smoking the smoke levels would really be egregious.
Quote: WizardTobacco is not "safe enough." It kills 443,000 Americans per year
I said "safe enough in the eyes of government. If it was not safe enough (in their eyes), it should be illegal, unless the government is consciously trying to kill its own people.
Quote:Still, I don't support banning tobacco, because I believe everyone should have the right to do what they wish to their own body.
Really? Do you support banning asbestos or lead paint then? How about all the other regulations you mentioned in your previous post?
Quote: boymimboThere are alot of issues with bringing back smoking on planes.
- First, you would have to get around TSA and NTSB's requirements around open flames on planes and the safety issues around smoking in general on flights.
You don't need open flame to light a cigarette.
Quote:- Second, you eliminate 80% of the market with non-smokers. Therefore, I could not see more than 1 flight a day going to a major destination where smoking would be offerred. So, for example, if 1,000 / day fly from JFK to LAS on American, perhaps you could fill one plane with smokers. That said, the smokers would need to prefer smoking over time-of-day and airline.
That's, probably, true, but it's not government's business. If an airline does not want to allow smoking in their planes for whatever reason (safety or not enough smokers or whatever), it's their God given right.
Quote:- Thirdly, when that plane becomes a non-smoking plane, a great deal of cleaning needs to be done. You would also need to change the in-flight videos and safety placards as well.
I don't agree with this. The ventilation in planes is very good, there is no reason to worry about cleaning the fabric to eliminate the tobacco odor, as there won't be any. As to cleaning out the butts from the ash trays, it's no different from removing all the other trash after a flight.
Quote:- Fourth, you would have a fleet of smoking airplanes and a fleet of non-smoking airlines, staffed by smoking flight-attendants (imagine the lawsuits filed by non-smoking flight attendants forced to work on a smoking plane).
There is no law you can't be made to work in a smoking place. If you don't like it, you can always quit.
Many non-smokers don't really mind BTW. They work for money, not for their health.
Just look at casino dealers.
Again, if the airline does not want to force non-smoking flight attendants to work in smoking flights, and cannot find enough smokers, it can just not offer smoking flights. They would not have to have smoking flights, it would be optional.
Quote:Imagine the state laws that need to be overcome regarding smoking in public spaces; does that state law apply to a plane overhead?
It does not.
Quote:It ain't going to happen, folks.
This, I have to agree with :)
Quote: NareedAnd in the first place, the prejudice is against smokers these days.
There are two points here:
1) Ask yourself hwy businesses allow smoking when give the chance
2) The governmetn is defending the prejudice of the non-smoking majority, sometimes to ridiculous lenghts.
Of all the groups discriminated against today, I think "smokers" are close to the bottom of my list for sympathy.
Quote: AlanWhen I go to a restaurant(that still has smoking/non-smoking areas) I seek out non-smoking. I'd rather not smell the smoke while I'm trying to eat ...
One time, my wife and I drove through Virginia City and stopped in at some little restaurant on the main street. Walked in the door, and the place was foggy with cig smoke everywhere. We asked the hostess if they had a non-smoking section, and she pointed to a single table by the door. "Really? That's it?" we asked "Only one table is non-smoking?".
She answered "Whatever table you decide to sit at will be non-smoking".
This was in the mid-1990's.
Quote: WizardThe number of casinos and bars that voluntarily ban smoking in Nevada? As far as I know, that number is zero.
At least 2. Harrah's Laughlin and Riverside in Laughlin both have 2 casino floors a smoking area and a non-smoking area. The non-smoking areas actually were smoke free too.
Quote: weaselmanI said "safe enough in the eyes of government. If it was not safe enough (in their eyes), it should be illegal, unless the government is consciously trying to kill its own people.
Tobacco is legal for the same reason alcohol is. Everyone knows that prohibition was an abysmal failure.
Quote:Really? Do you support banning asbestos or lead paint then? How about all the other regulations you mentioned in your previous post?
I thought both those items were already banned in new products. If such existing material pose an immediate public danger they should be removed, by government force if necessary. As I understand it, as long as asbestos or lead paint is left alone it doesn't pose a danger. The problem is in applying it, messing with it, and removing it.
My philosophy is simple. You should be able to do as you wish as long as you're not hurting anybody other than yourself.
Quote: WizardTobacco is legal for the same reason alcohol is. Everyone knows that prohibition was an abysmal failure.
Everyone but the many governments engaged in drug prohibition.
That's an even bigger failure. the consequences of this failure kill thousands of innocent people every year, more, perhaps, than die of drug use. But now there are tons and tons of money for "the war on drugs," so no bureaucrat or poitician will seriously put an end to it. Not until they start losing elections.
Protection of society and health is absolutely government business. That's like saying that the government doesn't have the right to mandate seat belt usage. Of course it does.
If you're pregnant, yeah, I guess you can choose to quit. You may choose to work around a bunch of smokers; that right should not be extended to the unborn.
[can of worms open]
Quote: Wizard
Tobacco is legal for the same reason alcohol is. Everyone knows that prohibition was an abysmal failure.
Why isn't cocaine legal for the same reason? Or marihuana?
Quote:I thought both those items were already banned in new products. If such existing material pose an immediate public danger they should be removed, by government force if necessary. As I understand it, as long as asbestos or lead paint is left alone it doesn't pose a danger. The problem is in applying it, messing with it, and removing it.
Yes. So, they are banned (in new products). The question was if you support those bans.
Quote: boymimbo
Protection of society and health is absolutely government business. That's like saying that the government doesn't have the right to mandate seat belt usage. Of course it does.
That sounds like a good question for the Wizard too :)
If I am not buckled up, I am not hurting anyone, except for, possibly, myself. Should it be my right to do so, or do I need the big brother to watch after me?
Once again, if tobacco is deemed harmful enough to the society that it needs to be protected from it by the government, then it needs to be made illegal. I have no problem with that. That would be government protecting the society. Telling businesses what they can do is not protecting anything, it just hurts the economy.
There is a little cigar shop in my town, where a few affictionados used to get together with the owner some winter nights to watch TV, and have a cigar. Last year it got fined by the town for "smoking in public places". Go figure ...
Ban smoking around anyone under 21 including in your own home and car
Quote: WizardFirst, I'm sure the airline industry will fight for a greater than 5% share. Once they get their foot in that door, expect the share to climb to 50% or higher. Then non-smokers will be put in a situation all the time where they only flights they can get from point A to B for the dates they need are all smoking flights.
When business have the choice to be smoking or non-smoking, they always choose to allow smoking. The number of casinos and bars that voluntarily ban smoking in Nevada? As far as I know, that number is zero. It goes to show that private industry cannot be trusted to make options available to non-smokers. The role of government should be to protect public safety. Since the private sector is doing a horrible job of it, government must step in to protect the rights of non-smokers.
I would have to respectfully disagree here. I think that most if not all airlines would stay smokefree even if the regulation was rolled back. (I don't want it to be, banning smoking on planes is a government regulation I think works and is good.) I also disagree that "when businesses have a choice they choose to cater to the smoking customer.
1960s, 70s, even early 1980s that was the case. But today the smoking rate is about 18-20%. What airline is going to upset 80% of their customers to cater to 20% As for airlines it is probably even less when you consider smokers are lower-income on average and should thus fly less. You may be used to LV and The Strip Hotels, but in many hotels it is now 100% smoke-free without bans. Logic being that once a smoker puts a smell in a room it can cost $1-200 to fix it and the other 80% of the guests hate being in the smoky-smelling room. IMHO the tipping-point of catering to smokers or nonsmokers flipped somewhere between 1985-1990.
Casinos and bars feel they do better catering to smokers. They might be correct. They may not. BHere in PIT the casino is one of the only buildings where people work where there is smoking allowed. Parts are smoking and parts smoke-free. The only time I have hung in the smoking area was to get a shoe-dealt BJ game. It seems to work.
Quote: gofaster87I think everyone should worry more about what they eat than smoke. They should ban unhealthy greasy fast food before they should ban smoking. I love it when I see the BPs(buffet people) lining up with 2 plates a piece and they can barely walk back to their table because their belly is swinging back and forth at such force it throws them off balance. I smoke and Im probably in better shape than 75% of you. I can still ride and run. In fact I went a 14 mile ride on my mountain bike not too long ago and barely broke a sweat. I know more people with health issues because of their diet than people having cancer issues.
Smoking is likely worse for you than being moderately overweight. But unless you are seated near a lardo on a plane, on obese person's problems do not affect me. Cigarette smoke does. I am all for allowing people to do what they like in the privacy of their own homes. That's where cigarettes should be smoked.
