SD Smoking Ban Challenged

[Rebellab]

Linky

 

SIOUX FALLS, SD - A Sioux Falls businessman who sued the city over its regulation of video lottery machines has now filed a lawsuit challenging South Dakota's new smoking ban.

 

Voters last November approved banning smoking in bars and casinos. Rick Law alleges in his lawsuit that the ban violates the rights of private property owners by restricting their business decisions. The lawsuit also says the law creates a "special class" of business owners by giving smoke shop owners the right to allow smoking on their property. It asks a judge to declare the law unconstitutional.

 

Jennifer Stalley with the American Cancer Society says business owners don't have an unfettered right to

run their businesses as they please.

 

Attorney General Marty Jackley will defend the ban in court.

 

 

The bolded statement caught my eye. Anyone else have a problem with the above statement.

[fingfootball]

She's right, just ask any small bussiness owner.

[bushwacked]

I think bar and casino owners should have the right to let patrons smoke, but there really isn't anything wrong with what she said.

[moneymakers]

Shouldn't we just let the 16592 people that live in the State of South Dakota decide if they want to smoke?

[Furd]

Jennifer Stalley with the American Cancer Society says business owners don't have an unfettered right torun their businesses as they please.

 

Of course they don't.

 

Just try to sell liquor out of your hardware store. Or don't put Exit signs by the doors because they ruin the ambiance. Or refuse to replace that wiring from 1912 because its too expensive. Or don't pay your employees overtime if they work more than 40 hours a week.

 

Businesses are heavily regulated at the city, state and to a lesser extent, federal level.

 

Smoking bans are not unconsitutional.

[Big John]

Shouldn't we just let the 16592 people that live in the State of South Dakota decide if they want to smoke?

Or 812,383

Edited February 24, 2011 by Big John

[fingfootball]

Of course they don't.

 

Just try to sell liquor out of your hardware store. Or don't put Exit signs by the doors because they ruin the ambiance. Or refuse to replace that wiring from 1912 because its too expensive. Or don't pay your employees overtime if they work more than 40 hours a week.

 

Businesses are heavily regulated at the city, state and to a lesser extent, federal level.

 

Smoking bans are not unconsitutional.

 

That doesnt mean that smoking bans are necessarily fair either. I dont have a problem limiting where people can smoke. But saying in a smoking ban that you cant smoke anywhere in public is not right. I mean we all know that there are places we could smoke and places we couldnt. I've never seen a no smoking sign in a church but we all know that you shouldnt spark up during Sunday services. I only recently quit smoking for the hundredth time, but never had the desire to smoke in a resturant. But instead of saying that smokers have no place in a community isnt fair to a large portion of society. In a ban why cant you let bar and casino owners have the choice to have a smoking or non smoking establishment?

[Rebellab]

Shouldn't we just let the 16592 people that live in the State of South Dakota decide if they want to smoke?

They did vote. Being against a smoking ban is like being against grandma's apple pie.

 

I voted against it for the very reason this comment was made. I don't feel it is my place to tell a business owner what to do. I really think she summed up what the American Cancer Society is all about, they want to control the way people act and do business.

[untateve]

They did vote. Being against a smoking ban is like being against grandma's apple pie.

 

I voted against it for the very reason this comment was made. I don't feel it is my place to tell a business owner what to do. I really think she summed up what the American Cancer Society is all about, they want to control the way people act and do business.

 

I'm going to disagree with the this statement. I don't think that the American Cancer society "is all about controlling the way people act and do business." I think the American Cancer Society is more likely "all about" working toward preventing cancer in people. As a result, the American Cancer Society is supportive of just about anything that makes is more difficult to smoke, including bans preventing individuals from smoking in public places. I guess we could argue that a business is a private place. But it certainly cost me a good bit of coin to insure that my private business is wheelchair accessible. I had to build a ramp, and put in handrails in the bathrooms and designate special spaces in my parking area. It turns out that if I didn't do this, I was going to be fined a great deal of money.

[Rovers]

I understand prohibiting smoking indoors. People who work in those establishments have a right to clean air in the workplace.

 

What gets me frosted is when the government takes personal freedoms away to impose their value systems on the general populace. Why prohibit smoking on a privately owned outdoor patio behind a pub? Why make it illegal in a public open air public park? Or a sidewalk? Fumes from buses are far worse than someone smoking a cigarette on a sidewalk, and how often do I choke from some woman wearing a half bottle of perfume in the supermarket?

 

I have one for you. NY keeps trying to make it illegal for any food seving establishment to have salt shakers on the tables. One idiot lawmaker actually tried to write a law that would even prohibit using salt in a restaurant kitchen! Why? Because his father died of high blood pressure.

 

The government has become overbearing and oppressive. They want to regulate life styles. They want to write laws that dictate what our value systems should be. I'd be all for going Egyptian on this government. We are over regulated, and where will it end? It won't end at salt shakers. It won't end until we as a people start making some noise.

 

People stood by while smokers had to pay oppressive ridiculously high taxes on tobacco. They should have stood up to government then. Now, they want to add unjust and unfair taxes on soda pop, potato chips and all kinds of things that will hit more of the general population. This governement is out of control, and it's because it's people have allowed it to happen. I'm going to sit back and watch, as an ex-smoker, and laugh at those who stood by while I was victimized. Let's see how they like it when the government puts the bulls eye on their backs.

[SEC=UGA]

I'm going to disagree with the this statement. I don't think that the American Cancer society "is all about controlling the way people act and do business." I think the American Cancer Society is more likely "all about" working toward preventing cancer in people. As a result, the American Cancer Society is supportive of just about anything that makes is more difficult to smoke, including bans preventing individuals from smoking in public places. I guess we could argue that a business is a private place. But it certainly cost me a good bit of coin to insure that my private business is wheelchair accessible. I had to build a ramp, and put in handrails in the bathrooms and designate special spaces in my parking area. It turns out that if I didn't do this, I was going to be fined a great deal of money.

 

That is covered under the ADA and is in place to allow unfettered access to all people regardless of ability/handicap ( I have some problems with the ADA, as well, imagine.) So, smoking is an addiction, a disability of sorts, kinda like fat people, so why shouldn't smokers be covered under the ADA and be allowed to smoke?

 

The only issues I have with smoking bans is that you are forcing an individual to operate his business in a certain manner. Though, I do kinda like the way GA has crafted their public smoking ban (if a state is going to have one.) The establishment that allows smoking can only allow people 18 years and over into the establishment or the smoking area must be sealed off and have a ventilation system/AC system on a separate system from that of the area in which people under the age of 18 are allowed. Thus, the business owner can decide which direction they want to take their establishment. You want a bunch of revenue from alcohol sales, allow smokers. You want a bunch of juveniles running around, throwing crap on the floor and walls, and annoying the rest of your patrons, don't allow smoking. Pretty simple.

[Square]

That is covered under the ADA and is in place to allow unfettered access to all people regardless of ability/handicap ( I have some problems with the ADA, as well, imagine.) So, smoking is an addiction, a disability of sorts, kinda like fat people, so why shouldn't smokers be covered under the ADA and be allowed to smoke?

ADA is a government restriction just like the National Electric Code and 100s of other things they require of business owners. The point is that it is a bit naive to act like this government restriction is so much different. Besides, c'mon man this is dumb. You being handicapped doesn't mean that I'm going to get fat from hanging out with you. Secondary smoke intake has been linked to a lot of vile things in humans and its a bit ridiculous to try to take that out of the equation. If my drinking caused you liver cancer than I'd expect to be limited to places where I couldn't infect others with my unquenchable thirst for Captain Morgan. At some point I don't care if people want to poison themselves slowly in their own homes. I just A) don't want to have young adults (who think they'll live forever) working in a place 40 - 60 hours a week without clean air and B ) don't want to smell like I've been rolling around in ash trays the next morning just because I went out to get a drink.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Square

[The Irish Doggy]

I people would just stop spreading their vile filth upon the innocent children, we wouldn't need these bans in the first place. **thinking of the children**

[SEC=UGA]

ADA is a government restriction just like the National Electric Code and 100s of other things they require of business owners. The point is that it is a bit naive to act like this government restriction is so much different. Besides, c'mon man this is dumb. You being handicapped doesn't mean that I'm going to get fat from hanging out with you. Secondary smoke intake has been linked to a lot of vile things in humans and its a bit ridiculous to try to take that out of the equation. If my drinking caused you liver cancer than I'd expect to be limited to places where I couldn't infect others with my unquenchable thirst for Captain Morgan. At some point I don't care if people want to poison themselves slowly in their own homes. I just A) don't want to have young adults (who think they'll live forever) working in a place 40 - 60 hours a week without clean air and B ) don't want to smell like I've been rolling around in ash trays the next morning just because I went out to get a drink.

 

With regard to the first part of comparing smokers to fat people and ADA protections, well, that is why I included

 

Secondly, if you don't want to smell like an ashtray then don't go to bars that allow smoking in them, you have feet you can walk or drive to another bar which does not allow people to smoke. Also, are you really that concerned about waiters and waitresses, seriously, you've got to be kidding me. If they have an issue with working in a smokey environment they can choose to work in a place that does not allow smoking. It's all about choices, the restaurant/bar owner should be able to choose whether they want to allow smokers, the patron should choose whther they want to go to a place that allows smokers and the employees can choose whether or not to work in a place that allows smokers.

 

You know, forcing places to not allow smoking is a lot like these right wing christians trying to ban Harry Potter books in public schools, you're just trying to control the actions of others when you have just as much of an option to not do what they do or to inhabit the places they do, or in the case of the books, not to read them.

[untateve]

That is covered under the ADA and is in place to allow unfettered access to all people regardless of ability/handicap ( I have some problems with the ADA, as well, imagine.)

 

It's my business and it's my property. Who is the government to tell me what to do on my property?

[Rovers]

ADA is a government restriction just like the National Electric Code and 100s of other things they require of business owners. The point is that it is a bit naive to act like this government restriction is so much different. Besides, c'mon man this is dumb. You being handicapped doesn't mean that I'm going to get fat from hanging out with you. Secondary smoke intake has been linked to a lot of vile things in humans and its a bit ridiculous to try to take that out of the equation. If my drinking caused you liver cancer than I'd expect to be limited to places where I couldn't infect others with my unquenchable thirst for Captain Morgan. At some point I don't care if people want to poison themselves slowly in their own homes. I just A) don't want to have young adults (who think they'll live forever) working in a place 40 - 60 hours a week without clean air and B ) don't want to smell like I've been rolling around in ash trays the next morning just because I went out to get a drink.

 

Please.... people don't WANT to poison themselves. Smokers are victims, not criminals. The tobacco companies intentionally added other addictive substances into their cigarettes to make it even more difficult to break the addiction. Not only are they victims, they have to put up with people who hate them for it. On top of that, smokers are saving you a boatload of money with the unfair taxes they pay.

 

The ADA was and is BS. The amount of money we all had to pay for this miniscule group of wheelchair bound people is obscene. Let them go to places that have handicapped facilities. Like smoking, if you hate it so much, don't go where people are permitted to smoke. There are so few places, you don't even have a good reason the whine about it. When was the last time you EVER went into a place where smoking was permitted? I suppose you think smoking should be illegal in a smoke shop too, right? Or a cigar lounge?

 

People who don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke don't have to be. Stop sounding like your rights are being trampled. It's weak.

 

There are more than enough people who want to avoid second hand smoke that most establishments if left to having the freedom to choose, would choose to be non-smoking. There would be few places smokers could go smoke if the market and freedom of choice were permitted in this country anymore. Across the baord smoking bans are an infringement on personal rights and the freedom to choose. Let smokers go to the few places that would allow it, and let the non-smokers go where they are happy too, in non smoking establishments.

 

The only real problem I see is for the employees. Still, they can choose not to work in a given location. You hate smokers, so you don't see it as a lose of personal freedom. Wait until they regulate something you do and see how you like it. As an ex-smoker, I'm going to enjoy watching the rest of you whine as your right to make your own choices goes up in ... smoke.

 

Freedoms in this country are disappearing. Why? Because there is a lack of respect for when a minority has it's rights of choice trampled upon. It's just a matter of time before the majority will lose it's rights too. I'm going to sit here and laugh, watching it all unfold.

 

Could you pass the salt shaker pleae? Oh, wait, there is no salt shaker? When did that happen?

Edited February 24, 2011 by Rovers

[TimC]

It's my business and it's my property. Who is the government to tell me what to do on my property?

 

It's not your business and it's not your property. Stop paying the Government those business and property taxes and you'll find out whose business and property it really is.

[Square]

With regard to the first part of comparing smokers to fat people and ADA protections, well, that is why I included

 

Secondly, if you don't want to smell like an ashtray then don't go to bars that allow smoking in them, you have feet you can walk or drive to another bar which does not allow people to smoke. Also, are you really that concerned about waiters and waitresses, seriously, you've got to be kidding me. If they have an issue with working in a smokey environment they can choose to work in a place that does not allow smoking. It's all about choices, the restaurant/bar owner should be able to choose whether they want to allow smokers, the patron should choose whther they want to go to a place that allows smokers and the employees can choose whether or not to work in a place that allows smokers.

 

You know, forcing places to not allow smoking is a lot like these right wing christians trying to ban Harry Potter books in public schools, you're just trying to control the actions of others when you have just as much of an option to not do what they do or to inhabit the places they do, or in the case of the books, not to read them.

I worked in restuarants starting at age 16 busing tables. I didn't think it was a big deal at the time but yes years of working in a smoking environment is a potential health risk. It's like you are saying that parents should have a choice to decide if they want lead based paint in their toys. Those evil people shouldn't force out the competition by eliminating the other toys. Every toy maker has the choice to either use lead based paint or not. What could be the harm.

 

We went through it here locally. They banned smoking in all places except their was an exception to places with video keno. Unfortunately about 90% of the bars had video keno. So 10% of the bars struggled and some closed shop. The exception was eventually overturned in the courts and now no bars can smoke inside. It's back to business as usual and has been for a few years now. I don't smell like Lindsay Lohan in the morning and the workers and general populace is probably healthier for it. If you want to poison yourself slowly, than you can do it in areas that do not affect other people. Everyone knows that most smokers are drinkers and people typically smoke more when they are drinking. To act like the owner can just choose which type to let in is a bit naive. As long as the bars are on equal grounds from a non-smoking standpoint then they can freely and fairly compete for customers.

[Kid Cid]

I people would just stop spreading their vile filth upon the innocent children, we wouldn't need these bans in the first place. **thinking of the children**

Here's a thought for the children, don't bring them to smokey bars when they're 8 years old. Better yet, don't bring them to places where adults are doing adult things. F'ing momos.

[TimC]

I (wish) people would just stop spreading their vile filth upon the innocent children, we wouldn't need these bans in the first place. **thinking of the children**

 

I agree. I hope they never ban unmarked white vans with free candy painted on the side. Enough with Gubment intrusions already!

[Ursa Majoris]

With regard to the first part of comparing smokers to fat people and ADA protections, well, that is why I included

 

Secondly, if you don't want to smell like an ashtray then don't go to bars that allow smoking in them, you have feet you can walk or drive to another bar which does not allow people to smoke. Also, are you really that concerned about waiters and waitresses, seriously, you've got to be kidding me. If they have an issue with working in a smokey environment they can choose to work in a place that does not allow smoking. It's all about choices, the restaurant/bar owner should be able to choose whether they want to allow smokers, the patron should choose whther they want to go to a place that allows smokers and the employees can choose whether or not to work in a place that allows smokers.

 

You know, forcing places to not allow smoking is a lot like these right wing christians trying to ban Harry Potter books in public schools, you're just trying to control the actions of others when you have just as much of an option to not do what they do or to inhabit the places they do, or in the case of the books, not to read them.

I completely agree with this. It's like any other profession - you can choose to work where you want based on your preference and abilities. If you don't want to die early of lung disease, don't be a miner in Kentucky / waitress in a smoky bar. This is yet another example of the relentless drive to control other people's lives.

[SEC=UGA]

I don't smell like Lindsay Lohan in the morning and the workers and general populace is probably healthier for it. I

 

Glad to hear you're laying off of the astro glide and not hanging out at fish processing factories any more.

[Square]

Dirty air triggers more heart attacks than cocaine

 

Reuters link

 

The highest risk PAF was exposure to traffic, followed by physical exertion, alcohol, coffee, air pollution, and then things like anger, sex, cocaine use, smoking Josh Gordon and respiratory infections

While passive smoking was not included in this study, Nawrot said the effects of second-hand smoke were likely to be similar to that of outdoor air pollution, and noted previous research which found that bans on smoking in public places have significantly reduced heart attack rates.

[SEC=UGA]

Dirty air triggers more heart attacks than cocaine

 

Reuters link

 

Dude, seriously...

 

The article basically states, conclusively, that it is more dangerous to walk outside in downtown Manhattan than it is to be in a bar of smokers, now that's news. We need to ban people from walking down roads, especially children.

[TimC]

Clearly cities need to be banned.