What is Digg?152 Comments
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -28/+83They don't ban drinking, but they DO ban drunk driving as you can kill someone. That is why smoking in public places should be banned - it can affect the health of other's. Sure, you might say "Then don't patronize those establishments." Well, why not just stay off the road if you don't want to get hit by a drunk driver?
- Tenlow, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29They already have a tax system like that in place. Unfortunately, none of the money is being spent on health care. So they need more taxes, but none of that money will be spent on health care either. So they'll need more taxes, until nobody can afford to smoke except the billionaire lawmakers that get tax funded paychecks to enact new taxes on smoking.
- codyman, on 10/12/2007, -17/+41I don't smoke but I don't give a ***** if others do... if they want to smoke, good for them. Why does everyone have to give them ***** for smoking, they're adults, if they want to kill themselves slowly, let them. But honestly, this whole "feel good" politics is ridiculous. Yes secondhand smoke may be hazardous, but if someone is sitting outside smoking, nobody is forcing you to go sit next to them. And if a restaurant doesn't want them smoking, then thats up to the restaurant, why should the government make rules regarding all this?
- HawaiiSEO, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22I thought there would be more of a backlash, especially from the Japanese who chain smoke like crazy, but none so far. I also expected to see a lot more buts on the beach because that's about the only place you can smoke but I haven't noticed any of that either. (I still think it's a stupid law designed to restrict our personal liberties though)
- WillSpencer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25This will help the economies of other tourist destinations, such as the Philippines.
It's redistributing wealth to the third world better than any foreign aid program could. Thanks Hawaii! - Tenlow, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17I've always stood by my belief that the decision to allow smoking in buildings should be left up to the owner of the building, not with the government.
But that will never work because too many people actually want to allow smoking in buildings, so the government has to tell them they are unable to make that decision for themselves. - bandomac, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Bars are not a necessity; driving in most of the U.S. is for all intents and purposes. You are an idiot. People should be able to do what they want in accordance with the rules set forth by a private establishment. A bar is a private establishment. I don't smoke, and I visit a non-smoking bar all the time. It is an easy choice to make.
- Tenlow, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23Nar1117: Maybe I wasnt clear, but I do not believe the government should have any say on where I can or cannot smoke unless I am in a government building.
Meaning any ban on smoking is bad. For thousands of years it's worked to just let people make that decision for themselves. If you dont want someone smoking in your place of business, put up some no smoking signs. This is not something the government should have any control over. - amowls, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@ BasharTeg
Personally, I think Chanel No. 5 smells like *****. I say we ban people from wearing perfume outside the privacy of their own homes. - jcounterman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14The article specifically stated that these new bans were NOT to protect the health of employees and customers, but rather to make create "clean image" of the islands.
This type of ban goes well beyond protecting the health of people and starts pandering to those who think they have the right to live an annoyance-free life. - Tenlow, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13But if the place you're going used to allow smoking, smokers were here first. You're the one stepping on our toes.
- akira117, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11I hate eating at places where people smoke.
Even when there is a smoking section you
can still smell that tar smell.
For me I avoid places that have smoking allowed. - Conwaysb0718, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Its amusing to me that the same people who get offended when the government or some agency gets all in their business are usually the same ones who are totally ready to limit someone elses freedom.
- bobbknight, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17Pussy
- lofiboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Jesus, I'm not even a smoker, but it gets to the point where the people bitching and moaning about smoking annoy me more than the smokers.
- akira117, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Is this guy joking? Referring to Hawaii like its not part of the US......
(public schools probably) - alexsk8ca, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14How can people think smoking bans on private property makes sense? The bars you aren't allowed to smoke in are someones property, and if they want to let other people smoke there than they should be able to, and if you don't like it you can go somewhere else.
- Eyeooga, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If its like the laws here in California, it has to do with whether or not you have employees. That's why all the bars around here make their bartenders co-owners, so that they can get around the smoking laws.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@ricree
Generally, getting hit by a car is not voluntary. However, second hand smoking is voluntary because no one forces anyone to go in to a smokey bar. The bar is the bar owners' property, not anyone else's. The government has no right to tell the bar owner and the bar's customers what or what they cannot do like this. - jcjface, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5k, I'm a non-smoker, and while I don't like the smell of cigarette smoke, there is no evidence to suggest that second hand smoke is harmful/cancer causing. All these bans do is limit Americans' rights and give the government more control over things that are none of their business.
- plex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The whole "smoking ban" is complete *****. Sure, I'm for not allowing smoking in "federal" buildings and property since it is owned by Uncle Sam and you don't have an alternative choice but ban smoking in private establishments? Come on people, where does the government have the right to tell the business owner he or she cannot allow smoking in their establishment? And for all those people who say they do not like to smell smoke in bars and restaurants, then do not go to them. You honestly believe for a second that a business owner would keep allowing smokers if it was hurting revenue and profits? Here where I am they are banning it and there are several bars that have invested millions in creating ventilation systems and seperate smoke rooms to attract both smokers and non-smokers. However, the government feels that is not enough.
BTW, I am not a smoker. I just believe that the government needs to stop playing mommy. I can't wait 10 years from now when the ACLU has a field day on the new "segregation" of Americans.
Why don't be just ban fats since its an "epidemic" and Americans are being attacked by fat foods on a daily basis. Oh wait, New York City already on top of that... - andreo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ diggless
I pay for my own health care. So following you logic I should be able to write that off my taxes since I'm not a burden on the health care system...
And while we're at it. Give me a refund on the taxes that I pay for education also since I have no children. Why should I have to pay for someone else's bundle of joy? - jcounterman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7there's a difference between actually harming the other party and simply annoying them. Maybe smoking in a constricted bar could harm the health of the workers after many many years. This law, however, will ban it in outdoor tiki bars, where the smoke is ventillated and is of no harm to employees or customers.
Thankfully, we DO have the right to annoy others in this country...if we didn't, we would never be able to express our own opinions or do whatever we enjoy doing. - AlexWills, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Funny how the same legislatures that feel there rights are being infringed upon in the name of security dont feel the same way about their rights being taken away in the name of health.
Support one or the other, my friends. - Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Don't be too sure. Florida, Georgia, and Alabama already have indoor smoking acts. That in and of itself is awfully shocking considering the percentage of people in those states who are devout smokers.
- Conwaysb0718, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7If someone is blowing smoke in your face and you aren't doing anything about it, you are a weenie.
- mfratt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Didn't they pass a law in NY or something that doesnt let resturants sell foods with trans-fat?
- positron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@BasharTeg
Nobody is forced to work at a certain place. If you don't like the workplace atmosphere, or any other aspect for that matter, you are free to leave and find a job somewhere that better suits your tastes. - Eyeooga, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Great, now why don't you go down to Skid Row and beat up on some heroin addicts...
- brandz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6these anti-smoking laws are stupid. let the establishment decide if they want to allow smoking. bars and restaurants are private property, afterall. if you want to go to a non-smoking establishment, go, there are plenty around. nobody is forcing anyone to go near smokers. why do we need laws on this? this is a simple question of freedom and liberty.
- plex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Then don't go to that restaurant? You do have free will, right?
- realchris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And that's the way it should be. Business's should decide, not the government.
- MScrip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3> "That is what inhaling second-hand smoke is like to a non-smoker."
If a smoker sat down next to you in a restaurant, I hope you'd ask him to move, or put out the cigarette. There is a difference between smelling smoke, and inhaling smoke. If you're so close to a smoker that you're actually inhaling their smoke, one of you needs to move.
I smoke, but I'm courteous to those around me. - nuclearpenguins, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9The don't walk near them.
- Karyyk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If "less tourists" and "lower prices" are indeed a byproduct of this, then you can add job cuts to the list. After all, how much of Hawaii's economy is dependent on those tourists (many of whom will be going elsewhere)?
- CyBrShRk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@darkmule
If banning smoking was going to cut into Hawaii's economics it would be "puff away" as usual. New Jersey has the smoking ban in place...except for the casinos! Why? Casinos are cash cows and Asians love to smoke! OK, I kid. others like to smoke, but the Asians really like to smoke! - Karyyk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"If smoking is so important, feel free to start businesses that are for smoking in, rather than drinking in."
Hmmm, under a total-ban law like this, I'm afraid starting such an establishment would, in and of itself, be illegal. There goes that line of thinking...
Now it's smokers, but when the government steps in and says they're going to restrict something you hold near and dear (and they will, give them time, it won't be legal to pass gas at this rate), maybe then you'll see why restricting liberties (in this case those of the particular establishment owners) is a bad idea. - diggless, on 10/12/2007, -19/+22roads are public, bars are not
that being said, i would like to see a tax on cigarettes that represented the real costs to the health care system, smokers should be sustainable in their addiction. - RomeyRome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'd get up and leave & not eat at a place that allows cars to drive though the dining area.
- CyBrShRk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@diggless
We should tax idiotic responses from people who don't understand taxes or health care systems. Not a smoker but I don't want you as the say-so for what should be taxed. The world is much greater than you, although I'm sure you'd disagree...because you think you are all knowing...and so the circle of your stupidity continues... - RomeyRome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If Bobs are more vocal, how come Bobs keep getting banned?
I buy my cigarettes online to avoid paying taxes for something I can't do.
I can't wait till me & all the other Bobs are outside of a restaurant smoking & there's an earthquake. Then me & my fellow Bobs can point & laugh @ all the healthy people trapped inside.
Ok bad joke.. - 5hop4orce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I have more respect for this than the kind of petty harassment that has taken place in other states. I just wish they would drop the ***** "secondhand smoke" line and admit that it's a sanitation measure. Protecting smokers from themselves may also figure into it, but I don't buy for even one second that these people believe they're going to get cancer if they don't ban smoking.
Post-RTFA Comment: This is just more of the same *****. What a bunch of *****. Just ban the damn things if you want to ban them! - deskboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Is anyone familiar with the junk science that went into the original study on second hand smoke - if not - read this:
http://www.junkscience.com/feb01/perske.htm - Conwaysb0718, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6so don't go to that restaurant.
- CyBrShRk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@BasharTeg
Your fanaticism over cigarette smoke is awesome!! I hope you use have that same level of aggression on bigger, badder issues in the world. It's easy to pick on smokers now, they fell out of popularity two decades ago. Are you just a schoolyard bully? State governments have already figured secondhand smoke is bad and are moving accordingly...time to let go and find a new fight...or is second hand smoke your "beer muscles" topic? - RomeyRome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Then find yourself a Bobless restaurant. Restaurant & bar owners should be able to cater to whoever they want. You don't like, you don't go. If there are no Bobless restaurants around, then your business is obviously not wanted, and you are not entitled to it either.
- NowakFilms, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I often think about the hypocrites who bemoan second hand smoke as I stand outside, watching cars buses and trucks whiz by belching thousands of times more cacinogens per second than my puny Camel light. If people were seriously concerned about their health I would think that their concern would be focused on the major air pollution sources but alas, it's easier to pick on smokers than oil companies and auto manufacturers. I also fail to see the logic behind the "cost of smoking" arguments. If smokers die sooner then they are using fewer health care resources in the long run. Everyone eventually dies and coronary heart disease, strokes and the other leading causes of death are no less expensive than cancer. Good health is, after all, merely a slower death.
- truck87bp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Canceled tickets this morning.....
- CyBrShRk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@BasharTeg
Take the gun out of your mouth and put it down! We're just discussing here...nobody is stealing your money. You may need some anger management therapy pronto! Try not to think about all the air in the air system of a building...and how smoke is polluting it and coming to kill you...there's plenty of other things in that air system that are gonna kill you...but calm done we understand you hate smoking and cant think in broader terms. - Bael, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There are many things in the world that affect the health of the people around you. It's just the annoying ones that we want to scrutinize and ban. I used to work at a truck stop and I saw no difference between the rude trucker that would come in and blow smoke in your face or the businessman that can't put his associate on hold for the 30 seconds it takes to ring out his transaction. Personally, I don't care what you do with your life and your body, I don't even care what you do to my life and my body because I'm not so stupid that I don't know how to take care of myself. If I get cancer because of second-hand smoke, food additives, car exhaust, sunlight, or any of the other countless ways you can get cancer... then that's the way it's gonna be, I'll cross that bridge when and if I get to it. You really gotta live for the moment and stop being petty about what other people are doing.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 151 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is