Health Care: Smoking ban!

[VoteForRonPaul]

Note (This poll is about your opinion in smoking ban in general regardless if it is on the government level or the state level)
What is the position of Ron Paul regarding this issue?
Does this fit under the property rights or it goes against it?
And could smoking ban play a role in protecting all innocents (children born & unborn) ?
What national smoking ban means? Does is it refer to banning the manufacturing of tobacco products or it refers to banning smoking in closed and public areas?
And what is the difference between the situation here and there in the UK where the smoking ban is active in Public and closed places since the mid of 2007?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6258034.stm

Adult Cigarette Smoking in the United States: Current Estimates
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/adult_cig_smoking.htm

 

[Iowa4Paul]

Of course Ron is against a Smoking ban.

 

[hueylong]

It's a state and local issue. Beyond that -- business owners should decide how their business will handle the issue inside their premises.

 

[Truth Warrior]

None of the federal government's business!

 

[Knut Schreiber]

I'm a hardcore non-smoker. But I can avoid "passive smoking" by avoiding private areas where the owner allows smoking. It's easy, no need for a smoking-ban.

 

[nobody's_hero]

If the Federal government wants to regulate smoking, they'll need to pass an amendment. Plain and simple. Until then, it can butt (no pun intended) out and leave it to the states to decide.

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

Of course Ron is against a Smoking ban.

Ron Paul stands for protecting all innocents and a smoke ban would improve the protection of all innocents both born and unborn. What do you think?

 

[familydog]

Ron Paul stands for protecting all innocents and a smoke ban would improve the protection of all innocents both born and unborn. What do you think?

That's an interesting concept. His stance on pollution and global warming is that although the federal government should play little role in regulation, we don't have the right to pollute our neighbors air, water, etc. If that's true could that be applied to smoking in public places? That is, if you believe smoking is actually harmful.

 

[tommyzDad]

It's not a Federal issue, but one for the states or business owners. Period

 

[CrazyRonPaulSupporter]

I'm a non smoker. But I hate the smoking ban laws. It should be up to the owner of the place to decide if they want to allow smoking or not. A total ban is just one more step to strip us of our rights!!


.

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

It's not a Federal issue, but one for the states or business owners. Period

Okay so what is your opinion about smoking ban on the state level, would you vote for it or against it?

 

[therealjjj77]

I am a restuarant owner and I'm a non-smoker. I even don't allow smoking in my restuarant.

However, this choice is not because a law told me not to allow it. It's because I chose not to allow it in my cafe.

I got the phone call a couple months back from the division that's pushing for this and I told the woman my opinion regarding this.

After she heard I was a non-smoker and I didn't allow smoking in my cafe, she truly thought I would be a perfect target to help support this ban.

Not so. I told her that there are plenty of restuarants and maybe bars too(don't go to them so I don't know) that don't allow smoking. They do this not because of a smoking ban but because they choose to. People have the choice of which place they decide to go to and which place they decide to work at. No employer ever told a person they HAD to work for them in an interview. That person desired to work there knowing the environment they would be working in. They just as easily could have applied at non-smoking restuarants.

This kind of legislation will enlarge the size and scope of the health department and ultimately raise the prices of all restuarants(or they'll raise your taxes).

I also told her I was disgusted to hear a commercial on the radio about this from the health department paid with my money and wanted her to know that I don't want my tax dollars spent that way.

This is also a violation of private property rights.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I'm a hardcore non-smoker. But I can avoid "passive smoking" by avoiding private areas where the owner allows smoking. It's easy, no need for a smoking-ban.

Same here. If someone wants to unwind in a pool hall by lighting up after a hard day at work, I can keep my distance. I might smoke in moderation, myself (Sometimes I'll buy a pack, smoke one or two cigarettes out of it a week, and eventually give the rest away to a hardcore smoker knowing I'll never finish the pack). I personally feel that this country had a sort of 'film noir' romanticism when smoking was allowed in public areas just a few decades ago . . . call me crazy, but the cigarette butts in the urinals just whispered 'freedom' to me - everything from the haze in the bar room to tune of "As time goes by" played via piano in the background. I also believe that by trying our hardest to outlaw cigarettes, we've successfully re-created that rebellious allure that made cigarettes so fascinating in the first place.

Note to whom it may concern: I know it's bad for my health, so don't expect a rousing debate out of me. As Ron Paul is a medically-oriented man, he would probably not suggest anyone pick up the habit, but his stance on marijuana makes me assume he would not interfere with tobacco use (and especially because the Constitution doesn't allow the fed to regulate it).

Drew Carey can express this much better than I can: http://reason.tv/video/show/160.html

 

[PennCustom4RP]

we don't have the right to pollute our neighbors air, water, etc.

Yet given this premise, no one would be able to drive their car anywhere but on their property, nor burn fuel to keep warm, unless all these exhausts were contained to ones property...
All contribute to pollution...yet these are acceptable . Smoking rules are efforts to legislate healthy lifestyles...and this is not any governments purpose, be it local or federal.
I smoke, and if you do not like that...avoid me...do not patronize businesses that permit smoking, if you do not like smoke...

Whats next...outdoor BBQs prohibited because of their smoke? The smoke Nazis in California have already tried to ban wood-burning stoves, in some areas, because of their smoke...

 

[brandon]

how could you even ask this question?

Smoking is none of ANY government's business. Not the federal, state, or local government!! It is up to the owner of the property! Jesus christ, wake up people. Dont expect the government to take care of you and run your life.

 

[familydog]

Yet given this premise, no one would be able to drive their car anywhere but on their property, nor burn fuel to keep warm, unless all these exhausts were contained to ones property...
All contribute to pollution...yet these are acceptable . Smoking rules are efforts to legislate healthy lifestyles...and this is not any governments purpose, be it local or federal.
I smoke, and if you do not like that...avoid me...do not patronize businesses that permit smoking, if you do not like smoke...

Whats next...outdoor BBQs prohibited because of their smoke? The smoke Nazis in California have already tried to ban wood-burning stoves, in some areas, because of their smoke...

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that with how Ron Paul has explained his environmental stance, you'd think a ban on smoking would be ok. And you're right, using that logic we would need to go as far as you said. He really needs to clarify this.

Corporations polluting the air is no different than someone smoking in my face.

And before I'm accused of being a communist or whatever, I'm not saying there should be a federal ban on smoking. I'm just confused about the issue I stated above.

 

[Richie]

Since I'm a Constitutionalist, I believe this issue is best left up to the states. I personally don't care what goes on in a state that I don't live in. So, if Delaware banned all forms of smoking, I wouldn't care. If that's what the people there want, that's what they should get. If Maryland banned all forms of smoking, however, I would be working to get politicians in office that support leaving the decision of whether or not to smoke up to individual.

Our governor recently signed a bill that would prohibit smoking in bars. Whatever happened to property rights and the free market?

Personally, I think smoking is a very bad thing. I would proudly stand up for the rights of others to put what they want into their own bodies, though. Why? Because I feel safe in my personal decision not to smoke, and when the government says "Thou shall not smoke," they can also (in theory) say, "Thou shall smoke!"

 

[Madcat455]

I'm personally for it... simply because smokers refuse to regulate themselves.


If you want to do it..that's fine with me.

If you want to snort Coke.. fine, just don't throw the powder on me as I walk by.

Drink alcohol.. FINE, just don't splash me with it

I am SICK AND TIRED of having to walk through a smokers cloud because they're walking infront of me.

The BEST thing that Florida did was a state wide BAN on smoking in food areas.


If they found a way to make it so the Second hand smoke wasn't harmful, and didn't smell like ass... then I'd have a different position.

Until then, I look at it as if smokers are FORCING me to participate in their addiction. God help the person who intentionally blows smoke at me or my kids...

 

[dvictr]

if you dont want to go to a restaurant that allows smoking then DONT.. its not the governments decision!

 

[Richie]

if you dont want to go to a restaurant that allows smoking then DONT.. its not the governments decision!

QFT. That's what the free market is all about.