Live Free or Die? Maybe not for Smokers

[ITD]

Looks like the New Hampshire House passed a smoking ban in public places. Pretty much most of the restaurants I frequent at the lake seem to be smoke free anyway. Be interesting to see which way the Senate goes with this one.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2006/03/21/restaurant_smoking_ban_passes_in_the_house/

[phoenix]

maybe it still holds. The non smokers can live free and the smokers can kill themselves

[Winnipesaukee Divers]

I'm not a smoker, never had and never will. Yes, smoke bothers me and I find it very annoying. However, I still see this as the "Live free or Die" state and if people want to kill themselves than I think they should be allowed too. My mother is in her last years in her life and has had 1/3 of her lung removed due to smoking, life as been rough on her these past years and it all due to the smoking years of her life, she is paying the price for her little pleasure as she puts it. My father also paid the ultimate price for his smoking as well, although his end came quickly.

I on the other hand am also paying a high price for clean living and a very active life style. So, what’s the difference? We all get to the same place in the end. If I can't stand the smoke fill environments, I get up and move away or I find another place to eat, live or breathe.

As much as I would certainly enjoy never having to breathe in secondhand smoke again, I wouldn't want it to be at cost of someone else's liberties

[fatlazyless]

About fifty years ago, a well know American business saw went "If it's good for General Motors, then it's good for the US of A.

Here in New Hampshire, the 15 or 16 Republican Senators who usually stick together will normally abide by "If it's good for New Hampshire business', then it's good for the Granite State." And, if it reaffirms the "Live Free or Die" motto, that is another plus. Supposedly, a lot of restaurants welcomed a statewide non-smoking law because it would create a non-competative situation in terms of losing smokers to other restaurants.
Maybe a NH restaurant association lobbied some of the senators with contributions to their campaign funds. I wonder, does anyone know how long it takes before political contributions to the 24 senators from lobbying groups are made public. Is it one month, six months, or a year after the fact?

[dpg]

"on the other hand am also paying a high price for clean living and a very active life style. So, what’s the difference? We all get to the same place in the end. If I can't stand the smoke fill environments, I get up and move away or I find another place to eat, live or breathe. "

O.K I give and have just got to ask. Paying a high price for clean living and an active lifestyle??:confused:

[BBS2]

Live Free or Die is a great thought...but as Ann Landers said...
"your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins"

[Winnipesaukee Divers]

The real anwser is: Long-term disability from falling through a roof while on the job 25 years ago, now complicated by genetic disorders.

[JDeere]

I would not have thought it possible that anyone would argue that the “right” to make other people sick with second hand smoke would fall under the motto of “live free or die.”

I guess if we cannot argue the speed limit smoking might be our second hand smoke…………..I mean choice.

[Woodsy]

I don't smoke cigarettes now, nor have I ever, although my parents both smoked and some of my sisters still do. Personally I can't stand the smell of cigarettes, and matches are the absolute worst! But I like a good cigar... go figure?

However, It's seems pretty simple to me... It is all about the freedom to choose!

I think it should be up to the restaurant owner how he chooses to run his business. If he chooses to allow smoking, I (as a non-smoking customer) can choose not eat/drink there. If I were an employee, I could choose not to work there.

Last I checked, purchasing cigarettes was still legal if you were 18 years or older. We as a society tax the heck out of cigarettes to raise money for uses other than paying for a smokers healthcare. If cigarettes are legal to purchase, I don't see why they cannot be smoked legally in certain places. Notice I didn't use the phrase "public place". I don't consider a restaurant or a bar a "public place".

The reason its a big deal is because people who want to run thier restaurants as non-smoking, don't want to lose thier customers who do smoke to a restaurant that allows smoking. This debate is all about money and competition. I say let the market decide! Restaurants that allow smoking will switch as soon as they lose business.

Woodsy

[Weirs guy]

Live Free or Die is a great thought...but as Ann Landers said...
"your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins"

And conversely my right to stick my nose someplace ends where your arm begins. The government should have no say in how a individual business handles smokers. Seems to me there are bigger problems in this State then someone’s right to be someplace infringing on someone else’s right to be there.

[KonaChick]

I guess now that the HB 162 issue is over people need something to fight..errrrr...debate about. :rolleye2: