NH Senate Says No To Smoking Ban - On Principle!

Hello
All you smokers are whining that your rights have been taken away. That is far from the truth you still have the right to smoke.
I have the right to clean air in public places how ever it has been trampled on for years. Finely my rights have been returned and protected. The workers of the bars have a right to clean air also I think any factory would be shut down if they forced workers to work in such conditions. I know you'll say they have a choice they don't have to work there. So do you smokers, you don't have to smoke there, you can step outside. Ive even heard smokers complain about the smoke in some clubs, now how do you think a person who likes to be smoke free feels? Then we go home get in bed and smell that nasty smell smoke. So we get up throw our clothes out of the bedroom because they reek. We get back in bed and its still horrible. So we get up and take a shower because the smell is in our hair, and we cant stand the smell.
Your right to smoke stops at the end of my nose.
What if I liked the smell of pepper spray, ammonia, skunk scent or any other horrible (to most people) scent, Now imagine if I went into a public building and released a huge cloud of it so that I may indulge my preference or addiction to this smell. Yes your right I would be thrown out and the law called on me. My right to breath this ends at your nose. Just as your right to pollute the air (smoke) ends at my nose. We are both free to do as we chose as long as we don't interfere with each others rights. There are all kinds of laws on the books that support a persons right to be protected from, or free of something they find offensive or harmful. Such as loud music, nudity, swearing, reckless endangerment all perfectly legal as long as you don't infringe on some ones right to quite etc etc.

While your area has only 7 smoking establishments out of 42 total, yours is the exception, not the rule. Voting with your feet in that area is a simple matter.

I lived in California shortly after they instituted their smoking ban. Prior to that time, it was all but impossible for a non-smoker to enjoy ANY indoor social interaction. The bars, the restaraunts, the clubs, the bowling alleys, and anything other than fast food joints and theaters were decidedly against non-smoker patronage.

Within a couple months, opinion turned around. Those few establishments that were exempt from the rules began losing business. People go out for social interaction, not cigarettes.

The same was true in Ohio, which enacted similar legislation a few years later.

I agree, people should vote with their feet. But, where the majority opinion isn't even on the ballot, voting at the polls is the best alternative.

In 33 states, a majority of people have voted for some sort of smoking ban. It is VERY clear that people do not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke, yet the industry regularly and continuously ignored this request.

This type of legislation leveled the playing field. Were it repealed, most of the facilities would probably continue to prohibit smoking indoors, or in non-designated areas, based on foot-votes.

When the entertainment industries increase in every state that has enacted a ban, it's pretty fair to say that the foot-vote agrees with the democratic vote.

Non-smokers are not FORCED to go to business' that allow smoking, they are free to choose another that is non-smoking and vise versa.

Due to the change people can no longer choose to go to either, because there is no choice anymore, it has been taken away.

Non-smokers may be glad of this, but the fact remains YOU HAD A CHOICE of weather or not to frequent business' that "permitted" their customers to smoke. Think about it as a matter of quality of service, if you don't like the service don't buy it, if enough people agreed with you, the business would either fold or change their policy.
It should not be a matter for our government to decide for us, but a matter for local patrons and business owners.

It all Comes down to having the ability to make a choice. You should be enraged that another choice has been taken away.

The notion that a bar owner can allow a carcinogen to float around his establishment is a 19th century notion of freedom.

Once the data on second hand smoke became available, the notion that you can't pass laws like this all petered out. And guess what, whenever laws like this got passed somewhere, more people ended up quitting. Thus lowering the carcinogenic exposure for us all, thus saving lives "somewhere".

(Scientists are fairly convinced that lung cancer is very close to 100% exposure. The top culprit remains direct smoking, 2nd highest culprit is secondhand smoke, 3rd highest culprit is radon in our cellars. There are other smaller culprits.)

A restaurant or club is a public place BUT privately owned so it is NOT public property, therefore this bill is a strike against freedom and our state motto of 'Live Free Or Die' (if not somehow ironically). The owner of a business should be able to conduct business as he or she sees fit and if alowing a legal (as far as I know) activity such as smoking or drinking (also "bad for your health" both first and secondhandily)then the owner should have the right to do so. right?

u really piss me off' why can't u go outside. why don't u check out www.freelunch.com ' and get a life.

Ever thought of taking your stupid ass to another state.

how is this law not fucking Fascist? If you don't want to give money to a business that freely allows people to smoke within their walls then go somewhere else!

now see what u did' pass a smoking ban so the democrats and state can put a tax on candy and take more money away from children. are u proud of yourself.

I could quit smoking and drinking and some somebody could run me over and kill me ' we better get them cars off the road

why the hell should we go outside in the to smoke'i think this is gonna cause a lot of big problems the police will keep busy 'all it's gonna take is a bunch of non smokers bragging in a bar . this is really going to be interesting

I think there trying to change the state motto from live free or die to (do as we say)

its live free or die for a reason. what's next changing the states motto?

Thank you for taking the time to post your comments here. I really do understand where you are coming from -- my own grandfather died a horrible smoking-related death (from emphysema.)

If you do want to understand where these anti-ban sentiments are coming from, I urge you to take just 8 minutes of your time to watch this animation.

Thanks again.

So you are intelligent enough to write a comment, but first won't identify yourself, and secondly, can't understand the concept that SMOKE DOESN'T KNOW NOT TO GO INTO THE NON-SMOKING SECTION..thereby creating an infrigement on MY rights as a non-smoker because the smoke then comes into MY lungs!

Maybe SMOKE is smarter than you?

Good for you' I think there all a bunch of u no maybe the democrats should be the ones to come to the bar' and tell us to put are smokes out .now give me a few beers' and thats a joke'how many democrats can go out a window at one time.

I think the non smokers must pay more taxes than us smokers but think about how much money the state makes on our cigarette taxes

I am against smoking in general because in public I may not always have the option of not becoming a passive smoker and that do damage my property of my body and associated clothing. If someone want to smoke I don't care if they do it where it doesn't have any possibility of damaging my property. I just don't want to file a claim for damaged property on everyone that subjects me or my property to passive smoking.

One could argue that I should be more careful of where I position myself. But why should I do that when I am not the problem in the first place?

"It doesn't matter what the opinion polls say, because freedom must never be restricted by popular sentiment." Is it okay if I quote you? Those words need to be read or heard by everyone in this nation.