Smoking Ban Loses in Senate by 1 Vote

[Woodsy]

Here is the link on WMUR...

http://www.wmur.com/news/8507752/detail.html

Woodsy

[Great Idea]

Who do these Senators work for? Last time I checked it was for the NH citizens? Obviously they haven't been paying attention to the polls that have consistantly shown that 75 to 80 percent of the public want the ban. Wait until an employee or regular patron get lung cancer then via the legal system decide to clean the clock of a small local bar establishment in court....... sad but just like the speed limit it will take a tradgedy involving loss of life and more importantly loss of the almighty dollar via law suites and increased insurance costs before they will listen. Another example of how our elected officials don't really ever work for us but a few powerful special interest groups. I would imagine there might be more than a few voters ready to re-think their vote next time around.

[Gatto Nero]

I don't smoke and I can't stand second hand smoke, but I don't think it's the government's place to ban it in privately owed restaurants. If a restaurant, such as Patrick's, decides to ban it on their on then I will give that extra consideration when I decide where to eat. If the 79% in favor of the ban did the same then the problem would take care of itself in time. Of course there will be places that are completely fogged out, but if that's the case then that is obviously what their clientèle are comfortable with or they wouldn't continue to go there. I do understand the issue with the workers but they are not slave labor. They also have the option of working elsewhere.

[trfour]

Great Idea,

Heres a Lakes Region Restaurant that cares.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3017

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Patrick's went none smoking a few months ago and seems to be doing fine.

What happened to freedom of choice, personal responsibility, free market enterprise, etc., etc? It seems more and more that people want the government to take resposibility for them when they are perfectly capable of doing it themselves.

If a business owner wants to go smoke free great, if another doesn't his / her choice. I'll choose to patronize whichever I choose. Employees can follow suit. If that great a percentage of our population (I saw the poll as well) wants smoking banned in restaurants, let them vote with their feet and pocketbooks. Its much more effective and will save the tax payers the burden of a new "non smoking enforcement" department.

[csuhockey3]

Hey Folks,

I live out here in Loveland Colorado (just south of Fort Collins). Fort Collins passed a ban a few years ago and it's been great! We don't go to any restaurants or bars down here in Loveland because once you go without the smoke, you notice it a LOT more than you did in the past. It's nice going out to dinner/bar and not have to throw your clothes in the washing machine right away to get rid of the smoke permeating throughout your closet! If I wanted to smell like college, I'd go back to school

Colorado just passed a state-wide ban effective July 1 a few weeks ago (with some exceptions like cigar bars, casinos and the airport smoking lounge) -- I can't wait and I hope NH does the same. I see both sides of the argument, but what a difference it has made out here. Most bars now have covered and heated patios for smokers and it doesn't seem to cause much of a problem. Ahead of the ban, some restaurants/bars have already gone smoke free. I love it, but that's just my .02!

[Woodsy]

I am not a smoker, and never was a smoker.

I do have an issue with government mandates. Look at our illustrious neighbor to the south. The Democratic Peoples Commonwealth Of Massachusetts. It started with cities and towns banning smoking in bars & restaurants, then it went statewide to bars & restaurants (because of "unfair competition") Now you can't even smoke outside in some cities and towns... it just never ends. But they seem to have no problem selling cigarettes and taxing the heck out of them.

The restaurants & bars can decide whats best for thier business. I have no doubt that most restaurants in the state will go no smoking relatively quickly. Those that don't might find a niche business and actually make money catering to the nicotine crowd. (for the record, I tend to patronize non-smoking establishments) but sometimes a nice cigar and a brandy after dinner is just what the doctor ordered.

Don't even get me started on the new MA Healthcare plan... was supposed to cost the avg uninsured joe $200/mo and now its ballooned to $400... and its mandatory... pay the insurance man or pay the state fines!


Get off your butt and take responsibility for yourself and your actions! It is not the governments job to babysit you!

Woodsy

[csuhockey3]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Get off your butt and take responsibility for yourself and your actions! It is not the governments job to babysit you!

I agree, but it IS the government's job to listen to their constituency -- people out here spoke loud and clear that they wanted a ban, and it sounds much the same out there. Woodsy, I too love a nice cigar and a scotch every rare now and then, but I wouldn't dream of smoking anywhere near kids or non-smokers...I just think it's rude.

[secondcurve]

Woodsy:

I can't tell you how ignorant you sound. Many of the people posting here are from Massachusetts. There are two sides to every issue and the people on this site are very good at airing out the issues confronting the Lakes Region and New Hampshire. Think before you post and maybe you will be able persuade some folks to support your arguement.


Thanks.

[fpartri497]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

Woodsy:

I can't tell you how ignorant you sound. Many of the people posting here are from Massachusetts. There are two sides to every issue and the people on this site are very good at airing out the issues confronting the Lakes Region and New Hampshire. Think before you post and maybe you will be able persuade some folks to support your arguement.


Thanks.

I think woodsy has very valid points to make and so do you, but please dont turn this disscussion Into a Mass. attack. oh and by the way, Im a native NH.

fpartri497

[Paugus Bay Resident]

CSU,

but it IS the government's job to listen to their constituency

I agree to some extent, but is also their responsiblity to apply some reasoning (which is one of the biggest things I think is missing in our society) and interpret the constitution. I have no doubt that some of our forefathers are rolling over in their graves.

[NonVoting Taxpayer]

If they feel so strongly you shouldn't smoke, ban cigarette sales all together. I agree they want the tax revenues but they don't want you to smoke. Let the owner of the business decide how they want to run their establishment. Most don't let people smoke today anyway. If I don't want to deal with the smoke, I'll go somewhere else.
What's next, alcohol? Why are their bars when you shouldn,t drink and drive. Once again, the state wants the revenues.

[ITD]

As hard as it is to read, I agree with Woodsy (mostly). The health care plan in Taxachusetts will drive more business out of state. I've pretty much finished Howie Carr's new book, The Brother's Bulger and what little faith I had in Mass. Pols. is gone. Government should stay out of my life and my wallet. When ever you hear "we're from the government and we're here to help" be afraid.

[Woodsy]

SecondCurve..

I am sorry if I come across as ignorant. There used to be a time in this country when people took personal responsibility for the consequences of thier actions. This is no longer the case. There seems to be a need to have government micromanage your life, shift responsibility from the individual and place blame elsewhere all with the big goal of extracting a large financial penalty. Thank you lawyers!

I think it was sometime in the 60's warning labels appeared on cigarette packaging, and the anti-smoking crusade began. Yet, somehow people after that date are still awarded millions of dollars because they CHOSE to smoke, then got cancer or some other serious illness. In the meantime our illustrious lawmakers decided not to outlaw cigarettes, but tax them... but the tax money doesn't go into helping smokers... nope it gets put in the general fund to be spent on other things... same goes for the multi-billion dollar cigarette settlement money!

NH is one of the last bastions of less government is better. MA is almost completely opposite of this philosohy. I am not bashing MA, it seems to work for them.

Businesses should be allowed to decide whats best for thier business. Let free enterprise determine the course, not another silly law. In the Weirs, the Crazy Gringo (formerly Nothin' Fancy), and the Paradise Beach Club are both going to be non-smoking this year.

I prefer going to non-smoking establishments. If I were a parent (I'm not, and quite frankly shouldn't be alllowed to breed LOL!) I wouldn't bring my kids to a restaurant that allows smoking. If I were to have a nice cigar and a Brandy it certainly wouldn't be at the table, but at the bar. But thats me and my CHOICE.

Woodsy

[Zee]

Woodsy, you hardly sound ignorant. Your voicing an opinion many agree with but are too afraid to say out loud. As much as I hate the smell of smoke, I am glad the ban failed. I am just sorry that it was only by a margin of one. I have been concerned with how NH politics is definitely swinging to the left. The further south you go in the state, the more obvious this is. I'm hanging on to hope that the state hasn't gone past the mid-point. IN MY OPINION, one of the attractions, FOR ME, is that this state has a reputation for its less-government and let-live attitude. I sure hope that attitude prevails. With the influx of more liberal MA folks, that will and is changing. BTW, I'm a native NH but have lived in MA most of my life. I will be a permanent resident again next year but I am a non-voting taxpayer now. I sure wish I could vote for the legislators of my choice.

Regarding Woodsy's comments on "getting off your butt and taking responsibility for yourself and your actions", I also agree with that. That unfortunately is a problem in all states. People seem to need direction and laws to lead them. Common sense seems to be in short supply. I see it first hand as a school administrator in MA. Whether its the parents, teachers or the students (and yes, administrators!) ARGHHH, I'm starting to ramble. Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.

Oh, as far as Patrick's, we used to go often and refused to sit in the bar area because of the smoke. We went a few weeks ago and had a wonderful time in the smoke free bar. They sure didn't seem to be lacking for customers! It's a wonderful world!

[Grant]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I am not a smoker, and never was a smoker.

I do have an issue with government mandates. ...

Get off your butt and take responsibility for yourself and your actions! It is not the governments job to babysit you!

Woodsy

Amen. While not a smoker or a fan of smoky places, I am vehemently opposed to the "Nanny Nation" nonsense being rammed down our throats in this country. Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, smoking bans...where do common sense, self preservation and responsibility come into play?

[xstrapolator]

The only thing that bothers me about this not passing is that it was so close. The state senate used to have more sense. Oh, and BTW, I don't smoke.

[Gatto Nero]

Are you noticing a trend here? Seems that most, if not all, posters that are opposed to the ban are also non-smokers? Admittedly a minute sample but maybe that 79% in favor was an aberration or fabrication

[upthesaukee]

Check out your favorite (or not so favorite) Senator's vote on this issue here:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ie/r...teno=56&body=S

[secondcurve]

Woodsy:

Thanks for your response and clarification. I understand your point of view and although I don't fully agree, you present a good case. Have a nice weekend.

[gravy boat]

As a former smoker (10 weeks and counting, thankyouverymuch) after 25 years, I never had an issue stepping outside if I wanted to light up. I viewed it as common courtesy to those still eating, whether smokers or non-smokers.

One could argue that the government has no place in forcing smokers to refrain -- after all, it's their right to do as they please when it comes to their health.

And yet the same folks who expect independence in choice expect the same government to protect them in other areas -- food and drug supply, production, distribution, etc.

We tend to pick and choose the control we relinquish.

Too much tobacco CAN kill -- it's not a guarantee.
Too much alcohol CAN kill -- it's not a guarantee.
Too much peanut butter CAN kill -- it's not a guarantee.
In any case, you choose to consume an unhealthy amount, you run the risk. You knew the risks, you made the choice, you deal with the consequences. End of story.

Shouldn't we each take responsibility for our own actions and decisions? If I want to live by the "Consequences be damned" motto, it should be my choice. And if I make that choice, I have no right to blame my government, my neighboor, the local tobacco company, my spouse, etc. Choice is individual.

Gravy

[secondcurve]

Gravy:

The biggest problem with your arguement is that most smokers start when they are children, a time when they don't know any better. Once they start, usually they can't quit since smoking is addictive. I hate cigarettes, I've seen up close what they can do to people.

Is it a smokers right to throw their butts anywhere they happen to finish them? It is amazing that nearly all smokers don't view butts as trash, as evidenced by the fact that there certainly are plenty in the lake on the streets, etc. I understand the government should stay out of our lives arguement, but when it comes to smoking I'll let it do all it can to limit smoking. Peanut butter and alcohol may or may not be bad for a person, cigarettes always are bad.

[Zee]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

Gravy:

The biggest problem with your arguement is that most smokers start when they are children, a time when they don't know any better. Once they start, usually they can't quit since smoking is addictive. I hate cigarettes, I've seen up close what they can do to people.

This has nothing to do with banning of children smoking in public places. I would hope the parents or guardians would be with them in the restaurants.

Is it a smokers right to throw their butts anywhere they happen to finish them? It is amazing that nearly all smokers don't view butts as trash, as evidenced by the fact that there certainly are plenty in the lake on the streets, etc.

There are already laws on the books for littering. Let's enforce them, not create more laws.

[Dave R]

NH has allowed a ban on smoking forever. Anyone who owns property can ban smoking on/in it. No need to force anyone to ban smoking, as far as I'm concerned.

I am a non-smoker and I choose to frequent establishments that do not allow smoking because that's what I prefer. In my small town we have basically two full service restaurants that serve dinner. One allows smoking one does not. It's perfect. I haven't been in the smoke filled one in years. I don't miss it at all.

Quick little civics lesson:

Representatives are supposed to vote based on the desires of their constituents. They voted to pass this law because the majority of us wanted it.

Senators are supposed to vote with common sense and protect us from popular, but bad ideas. They have obviously decided that now is not the best time to have a smoking ban.

The Senate also recently voted to reduce traffic fines, probably because they felt the state raised the fines solely for revenue growth, and not for the good of the residents. Three cheers!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Resident

"...What happened to freedom of choice, personal responsibility, free market enterprise, etc., etc? It seems more and more that people want the government to take resposibility for them when they are perfectly capable of doing it themselves..."

Answers?

We've gotten smarter, and it's gotten crowded.

1) As to tobacco smoke: Shall we return to those LFOD days when smoking was permitted anywhere aboard a commercial jet aircraft?

2) As to helmets, Woodsy can relate a LFOD story regarding helmet-free motorcycling and a wandering deer. (Our nanny-state requires the wearing of eye protection also, but there's that enforcement thingy again).

3) As to seatbelts, it'd be my preference that you be belted-in behind the steering wheel rather than try to steer from the passenger's footwell should you be punted by another vehicle into my lane.

4) Following countless unprovoked attacks, Ontario [Province] has banned pit-bull ownership: Where does a LFOD-defense enter here?

Originally Posted by Grant

"...where do common sense, self preservation and responsibility come into play?

5) Many years ago, wouldn't you object to a stranger's placing their spitoon on your restaurant table? It's no different than with smoking—except that tobacco smoke is worse!

6) Most self-preserving tourists (and all the non-smokers among us) might balk at visiting a new restaurant: Restaurants would be helped by a ban!

7) It's not a LFOD issue with Senators. They are being real smart to keep the cigarette tax money flowing: It's a $463 million budget-balancer and is flowing-in from all NH borders.

8) Responsibility? Every cigarette butt in the street (and lake) bears mute testimony to that.

Alternately, we can strike a balance, which is what I would strive for. Most people agree that society needs basic human decency to function, even if this takes away your personal liberty to drive 60-MPH in a school zone or play fetch with your pitbull at a playground.

[Gatto Nero]

It looks as though it is starting to happen the right way. Here is a link to the Citizen that discusses several Meredith restaurants banning together and going non-smoking. Congrats to them for doing the right thing.

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...-1/citizen0103

[schase02]

Here in El Paso, they first made it illegal to smoke in public restaurants, that shortly followed by public bars and nightclubs, followed shortly by a ban to smoke within certain number of feet from a public entrance, and finally in any public building.

I have to disagree that banning smoking would be a boon for establishments. Those who smoke and like to smoke after a meal without standing outside in the cold will just not go out. Those who desire to eat a meal without smoke around will be more likely to go out. After they passed laws here, I take my business just outside city limits. Interestingly enough, those establishments that before the ban were not doing so hot - now are.

I wouldn't have had a problem if they made establishments section-off (including it's own ventilation system) a smoking section to meet the desires of their customers. But they didn't, and it's about impossible to determine the impact on businesses as this area is growing very fast. Not to mention the soon influx of 16K soldiers to Ft. Bliss.

It is a personal choice, I am against excessive regulation on business owners or private citizens. The spitoon notation is nothing different, if you do not feel comfortable there, it is your choice as a consumer not to give your business to that establishment. Two sides to every story indeed. My nextdoor neighbor has no right to tell me if I can smoke or not smoke. Nor would I have the right to blow smoke in their face.

It does come down to responsibility, I smoke, but I do not toss butts anywhere, if I am around non-smokers I walk away. But If I am smoking and they come to where I am, I will continue to smoke as it was their choice to go where I am. (not talking a sidewalk or entrance here). The argument is then made that they have the right to be any public place and not be subject to second hand smoke. True to a degree, but as public property, anyone has a right to be there - or to walk a different direction, myself included. What would you do if your on public property and come across someone with really bad body oder - stand there? It's a concious choice we make. I've been *followed* before by people who do the dramatic coughing. By followed I mean, I've gotten out of their way, wind not blowing back at them, and they move closer to me followed by dramatic coughing, I move again, the process repeats. You can understand the smokers that tell them to go inside if they do not care for it.

Personally I hate smoking, I'd love to quit. Believe it or not theres a slight medical condition that cigarette smoking helps me quite a bit. But interesting discussion on this topic.

[Gatto Nero]

It looks as though the ban might pass this time around.

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...135/-1/CITIZEN

I think I'm going to pull a John Kerry and flip flop on this issue. I had said previously that it wasn't necessarily the state's business to be regulating smoking policy to restaurants but a recent trip to the Bad Moose has changed my thinking. Some friends and I went to see Ricky and the Giants there a while back. The band was great but we ended up leaving after the first break because of a couple of smokers behind us. I didn't notice too many people smoking but the ones that were really did a number on us. It was a real bummer because there aren't too many other places with live music in the area. We haven't been back since but probably will once this law takes effect. I still think it would be better, from my perspective, if they restaurants did it on there own, but according to this article maybe this will make it easier on them too.

[Grant]

Gatto:

Funny, when I started reading your post, I was reminded of an evening last February when my brother-in-law and I went to see Ricky and the Giants at the Bad Moose. Great fun -- and arguably one of the best bar/cover bands I've ever had the pleasure of seeing (that guitarist is incredible). The one bummer of the evening was the smoke stench that permeated our clothing. And we both grew up in heavy smoking households -- although he never smoked (I did). It was the only bad part of an otherwise great night of food, drink and music.

These bans are a tough call. While I'm utterly opposed to the "Nanny Nation" mentality that wants to regulate everything we do -- from cradle to grave (yo, can we live free or die, or what?), and I understand the owner's quandary. I think that if an establishment wants to allow smoking, then the folks who patronize the place have to live with it or go somewhere else. Simple.

[Gatto Nero]

It is a tough call and not one that I would normally stand behind. I don't like the idea of state laws regulating my life any more then the next guy, but I do like the results of this one. For me, in this case, the benefits outweigh the negatives.

When you saw Ricky did he call his sister up for a few songs? She blew us away Janice Joplin's "Me & Bobby McGee". She can whale.

[Grant]

I agree -- and I am now really waffling -- I would still go there and enjoy it, but it certainly would be nicer if smoke-free.

And, no, I wish she had joined them last year. I was hoping to catch them again during the summer, but they weren't around whenever we were up there. Maybe when I open up this spring.

Their web site has dates and places.

[Hermit Cover]

on Fox TV....a new show called "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader"...Are they kidding us adults? Of course adults are smarter than a 5th grader....aren't we??

[fatlazyless]

So what's happening politically here in NH? Supposedly, the last time the Dems had this much clout was when Concord native, Franklin Pierce, was the prez, in 1852-1856. Smoking bans, boat speed limits and who knows what else? It was some type of perfect political storm that comes along every 150 years and done changed things here in the Granite State.

Hopefully, it's just a temporary fling and after the November 2008 election, everything will be right in NH once again for another 150 years. First things, the restored Republican majority will do will be to rescind the smokin', speed limits amd whatever other weird laws the Dems can cook up during their two-year stint and make NH right, again.

NH Repubicans may be down now but will be back!

[LadyKey]

When will the decision be made in Concord NH about smoking in restaurants/bars?

[SAMIAM]

Goodsk8s,that was very well said.Since the moonbats took over the state house I'm affraid we can expect more intrusions.Smoking ban,lake speed limits,helmet laws and who knows what else?.Maybe a permit will be required to light your BBQ.....kids on harness' in a mall....or better yet,with helmets,shin and knee guards.Any excuse for bigger government,higher raxes and more control over daily lives.
In Laconia,the school board just banned McDonalds from supporting the school football program because it wasn't fair to the other sports......maybe they should not even keep score....or provide grief counselors for the kids that lose....

[ApS]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

"...I'm afraid we can expect more intrusions. Smoking ban, lake speed limits, helmet laws and who knows what else...?"

As to motorcyclists, skydivers, snowmobilers—or even boaters—I'm not too stressed by what individuals do to themselves; however, one county showed a four-fold increase in helmetless fatalities after lifting the law requiring helmets.

At ten years old, I used to buy Old Gold cigarettes (filtered) for my grandmother at Melvin Village's only store—next to the Melvin River.

At 15, there was peer pressure in favor of smokers: even my "progressive" Warwick, Rhode Island high school had a special smoking room built next to the cafeteria. You weren't "cool" unless you were in that room—and it was crowded!

At 20, I flew on commercial airlines when smoking cigarettes and cigars was allowed. (It wasn't until 1990 that a ban was put on smoking on commercial carriers in aircraft and buses. Tobacco ads were banned from most media, and the under-aged couldn't buy smokes.)

At 25 years, I could carry a handgun on board a commercial aircraft legally.

I don't see what's being missed here.

[rander7823]

The difference with smoking and all your other examples is that you can passively inhale smoke and that inhaling second hand smoke causes cancer. The other example like transfat, hot coffee being splilled and drinking is all doing this to yourself not someone else doing it to you.

Lastly I am a firm believer in taking responsibilites for your own actions. My wife slipped and fell on a sidewalk that had some uncleared snow 18 years ago at our condo complex and hurt her knee. Hasn't been the same since. We could have brought a suit but we didn't because she saw the snow walked on it knowing it could be slippery and fell. This was not the fault of the person who didn't clear the snow well enough.

The smoking government intervention would be the only one I support.

[SIKSUKR]

Wow! Thanks Goodsk8s for those well thought out words.It's nice to see some rational thinking instead of blaming everyone and having laws for every stupid thing we humans may or may not do to ourselves.Bravo!!

[Lucky2Bhere]

I'm struggling to understand the LFOD mentality. In principle I agree with it but when peoples actions effect others it appears to be a societal issue. Even at outdoor concerts, parades, etc smoke has gone into my face and my kid's. Some people are apologetic and others just say.."move if it bothers you". Our rights also include public safety and smoking is as much a safety issue as lead, asbestos, etc. If only people were rational we wouldn't need laws but it's obvious we do. Helmets are a personal safety issue and their non use only effects the individual and those who love them.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Lucky2Bhere

....snip.....Helmets are a personal safety issue and their non use only effects the individual and those who love them.

...and the taxpayers that pick up the hospitalization and longterm care for the head injury victims without insurance..

[LIforrelaxin]

Lucky2bhere..... you say you don't understand the LFOD mentality.... I think though what you need to consider is this we can pass laws for every little thing that someone can do that might affect another but then where will we be as a society..... Right now it is smoking.... which I will admit is not one of the nicest habits but it is a person choice.... but you know now in most states the smokers rights are gone.... so what next, what ban wagon will people go to next and fight to get rid off.... If I have a cold and sneeze into my hand and then touch a door knob.... I might give someone a cold.... so shouldn't it be illegal to be sick in public.........I know this is a stretch but it is food for thought.... We need laws to protect us I know.... but we can protect oursleves with laws only so far before our freedom disappears.... By taking away smokers rights the liberals have taken away some of the freedom this Country is based on.....

Now on a personal note in relation to smoking.... I grew up with a smoker and breathed in a lot of second hand smoke... but you know what I am not worried.... and if I where to get sick.... I wouldn't blame my father..... things happen people get sick..... I would rather die happy.... then fustrated because my freedom has disappeared........

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Lucky2Bhere

I'm struggling to understand the LFOD mentality. In principle I agree with it but when peoples actions effect others it appears to be a societal issue. {snip}

LI has given you an answer that's better that I would have typed. Let me see if I can add just a bit more. In any of these type of decisions there are some that are "black", some that are "white" and these which are "gray". The reason given for smoking bans has been the Govt requirement for a safe workplace. The Surgeon General's report concluded that workers, in a constant environment of 2'nd hand smoke, have an undue risk* of cancer as a result of their workplace environment. So a ban becomes legally supportable. This part doesn't bother me so much. The problem I see is the implied precedent it seems to set. That is, if "we" don't like activity A then it becomes OK to ban or restrict it w/o any other considerations. Let's not kid ourselves, people vote for such bans because they don't like smoking, think it's bad and not (usually) because they're considering the worker's health. It's bad enough to balance trying to balance activities, such as having a drink with dinner, that can be abused to the level of causing problems for others, w/o having such precedents set. The LFoD mentality bends towards freedom first in these gray areas if only because of the slippery slope we're headed towards. Consider this: we're leaning towards an increase in socialized medical care in this country. It's only a question of when and how far. Smoking is attacked because it causes disease and death and costs $$s in our present healthcare system. This is a fact. Trans-fats are outlawed in NYC and soon in other states. Groups are lobbying against McDonalds ads using the precedent set for the tobacco ban on such ads. Can anyone dispute that health care costs due to excessive (bad) food and alcohol consumption play are a major cost driver in health care costs ? Anyone care to tell me what we're be allowed to eat or drink in 10 or 20 years ? A LFoD state may cost more $$s to live in, may be more "risky" o live in but you'll have freedom to make some decisions for yourself. Perhaps that's the magic formula for America ...LFoD in NH and if you don't like it, you have the freedom to go to Massachusetts where all those pesky decisions of what to smoke, eat, drink or drive will have been made for you.


*I wonder when the case will be made that, due to the undue risk to police officers in their workplace, that nobody should own guns, knives or drive cars.

[ApS]

I really like sunset bills.

Give this bill a sunset clause of ten years, and what would its staying-power be when Science keeps producing accounts like these?

"...Moreover, we found similarly increased induced mutation in women who had quit smoking during pregnancy, usually when they found out they were pregnant," said Dr. Grant, who also is an assistant investigator at the Magee-Womens Research Institute. "Perhaps, like certain pharmaceutical warnings, it would be appropriate to caution women to quit smoking if they are pregnant or likely to become pregnant.

"It is equally imperative that workplace protection be offered to reduce passive exposure..."

Article: Any Exposure To Tobacco Smoke During Pregnancy Is Risky

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0726125900.htm

[rander7823]

Smoking is unconstitutional. Someone else doing it interferes with my right to Life.
Now before you all get crazy on me I am exaggerating.

I absolutely agree that the government should not interfere in your rights to free choice of things that you do to yourself. But smoking is something that someone can do to you. Let's say I am somewhere first in a public place and a smoker shows up next to me because I was there first shouldn't I have the right to tell them to leave seeing as how I was there first? Maybe the Marine Patrol can help police this. Just a thought.

****

[phoenix]

the issue with trans fats is it is extremely harmful to you and if you knew it was in the food prepared at a restaurant then you could decide to eat or not eat. So as a compromise don't ban smoking or transfats or anything but just require a restaurant to post as you enter we put transfats in all our food and allow smoking anywhere so enter at your own risk

[ApS]

Originally Posted by schase02

"...I wouldn't have had a problem if they made establishments section-off (including it's own ventilation system) a smoking section to meet the desires of their customers..."

Sorta like the Wolfeboro Tavern?

[chipj29]

Here is my 2 pennies on this.
If you are a non-smoker, you do not have a choice on whether or not to smoke, if there is a smoker near you. Sure you can go somewhere else, or go outside, but whose rights are more important...the smoker or the non-smoker? Give the smoker the right to smoke, and he does it not really caring who is affected by it. Give the non-smoker the right to not smoke, and it affects no one around him/her.

There are directs impacts, and indirect impacts. For example, banning transfats. The eater of the transfats is directly impacted. No one else around them is impacted directly. Now you could argue that one could be impacted indirectly, as if the transfats make the eater sick, then healthcare costs can rise. But that to me is like in-indirect.
The helmet law has direct impacts on the rider choosing to not wear a helmet. It may also have direct impacts on the family of the rider emotionally. There are no concrete indirect impacts. Again...indirect impacts-healthcare etc.
In the case of smoking, the smoker is obviously directly impacted by the smoke, as are the people around them. Again with the indirect impact-healthcare thing.

You could also argue from the standpoint of a restaurant owner. Let's say you decide to ban smoking in your restaurant, while the place next door still allows it. That gives your customers the right to choose no doubt. I am not going to argue whose business is going to suffer. I am merely going to point out that one restaurants business WILL suffer. A smoking ban would level the playing field.

[Hermit Cover]

Sounds like all these issues have a common thread....."Oh...I guess one could say that smoking, trans fats and helmets don't really hurt anything or anyone....but healthcare." Looks like healthcare costs are going to keep rising....and rising...and rising...and......and the issues of smoke, fats, and helmets are going to fog the real problem.....we ALL agree that healthcare costs are a problem but it's easier to argue the finer points of helmets, fat, and smoke, and alcohol, and the air, and the water, and speed, and , and, and

[rander7823]

Apparently my comments about Social Security were legislated out. All I say is that that is the greatest example of not being responsible for your own actions and it is digging deeply into your pockets.
I'll give up on the smoking ban if they suspend Social Security.

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by Hermit Cover

we ALL agree that healthcare costs are a problem but it's easier to argue the finer points of helmets, fat, and smoke, and alcohol, and the air, and the water, and speed, and, and, and,

Skimming??

[SteveA]

It seems to me that this discussion, and I am impressed with the civility on this thread, is central to what makes this country a special place on this planet.The freedom to openly debate "rights".

Check this site out. I'll bet each of us can find support in our countries history for a thoughtful stance on every issue from smoking to helmet laws to transfat.

... and what about that flouride in our water? I'm for it if it stays at least 150' away!!

http://freedomkeys.com/rights.htm

[fatlazyless]

Remember those guys, or make it that guy and the camel. No longer allowed, the Marlboro Man and Joe Camel were outlawed by the Feds under Ronald Reagan because they were targeted at teenagers to get them to start.

New Hampshire is short on its' tax revs and needs all the tobacco tax it can get so....... How about an Old Man Of the Mountain puffing away on a cigarette, ad campaign, that's targeted at New Hampshire teenage smokers. The State of New Hampshire needs to mine the cigarette tax right so's it can avoid the dreaded income tax. What could be more New Hampshire than the Old Man of the Mountain with a cigarette on one side of its' mouth while it says "Live Free or Die" out the other side. Live Free of Die......New Hampshire is smokkin!

Supposedly, twenty percent of New Hampshire adults are smokers, and the tobacco company stocks, mo & reynolds, have been excellent investments since President Bush became President.

[phoenix]

I would be ok with increasing the tax on tobacco as we are much lower than most neighboring states but i keep get reminded by JRC that the only good tax is a tax on someone else( i am a non smoker)

[Woodsy]

World News dateline March 2007
Washington

The Federal Goverment has unvield a new task force in it's unending and relentless desire to keep Americans safe from themselves. The new W.K.B.T.Y (We Know Better Than You ) Agency will be a multi faceted, multi-tiered, procative force whose numbers will reach into the millions. Their objective, the micro-management of every American citizens, health and safety habits. Armed with ever changing statistics they weill set out each day to make sure the current list of safety no-nos are kept in check. If you ride a motorcycle, motor scooter, moped, bicycle, or sled without a helmet then they will swarm you like killer bees on a stray dog. Badgering you with worn out misinformed statistics until they leave you a blubbering drooling shell of your former intelligent self.

If you smoke, yes even if you have smoked for the last 70 of your eighty five years of life, they will wave cancer infested lungs in your face until you puke and then blame you vomitus projectile on those nasty cigarettes you have been smoking.

Better buckle that seat belt son, because that grandmotherly woman who asked for a ride to the market is really a covert agent for the W.K.B.T.Y and she is taking notes, worse still she will gnaw at your brain as her nasal whine spews retorhic deep into your subconscience. By the time she is done with you you will hate yourself for being so foolhardy.

Big Mac attack? Nay heart attack! Wouldn't you really rather have a salad while waiting to trade your gas guzzling SUV in for that tiny piece of plastic earth first car that couldn't save your life if you and the car were both buckled up and inserted into a rubber ball.

Butter? Are you insane?? What's the matter don't you like your arteries?

So you have cancer and are in pain, tough it out bunkie because legalizing pot is bad for mom, America and apple pie.

Their planned agenda is far reaching and they are completely commited (I have the court papers to prove it too) John Icu, head of the agency puts it this way. Americans in general are too stupid to tie their shoes and look at the internet at the same time. They simply cannot be trusted to make safety decisons for themselves. We tried laws but they kept screaming about individual rights or some such nonsense, so we have decided that it is best to arm ourselves with an army, an army of professionally trained nags that will wear down their resistance with a non stop barrage. We could be your neighbors, your friends, your spouse. You will never know when we are there. You may think that we are just your average Ralph Nadar loving safety Nazi, but we are not, we are worse, we are your personal nightmare. and we a coming for you and you can't stop us...

It has already started here in NH... smoking ban, unneccecary boat speed limits, no doubt helmet and seatbelt laws are coming... John Stark must be rolling in his grave... so much for Live Free or Die

Woodsy

PS: The above post is just a joke designed to make you think.... there is no W.K.B.T.Y. agency.... Yet!

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

PS: The above post is just a joke designed to make you think.... there is no W.K.B.T.Y. agency.... Yet!

They ARE here Woodsy - they are called "Liberals" and they are rapidly permeating NH and destroying the "Live Free or Die" foundation on which this State was built.

[Gavia immer]

The answer to WKBTY is nationalized healthcare.

That's where all the brain-injured motorcyclists, the uninsured, the oxygen-deprived skimming victims, the cancerized lifetime smokers, the smoke-affected unborn, the unbelted, and ALL the long-term substance-abusers go to be fixed. For free.

Which of New Hampshire's WKBTY laws shold be repealed, by the way?

[rander7823]

I like this live free or die thing......but it appears that there are exceptions...for example if you have money, buy property around a certain lake and intend to put up big houses or condo's that isn't allowed.

[rander7823]

A bill has been brought before Congress to fund W.K.B.T.Y (We Know Better Than You ) Legislation. Anyone with lakefront property that is smaller than 4500 Sq ft will pay an additional $1.5M/year in taxes. If you have a view and are less than 4500Sqft it will be $.75M/year.
Plan your new homes accordingly

[vrrooom]

People need to take full responcibility for their actions or inactions. In this light, government should not be allowed to subsidise the poor choices people make. No Medicare or other govt subsidies for smoking related diseases, obesity or injuries resulting from unsafe behavior (eg head injuries if you ride without a helmet). We all know the dangers, and government should not financillaly or otherwise encourage these activities. Judges should throw out lawsuits that individuals file as a result of their foolish behavior or choices.

By the way I ride, and have smoked in the past.

[GusMan]

I recently visited a NH bar/restaurant and was stunned to find a smoke filled lounge. As a non-smoker, I forgot how spoiled I am here in Massachusetts where smoking is banned in almost all public spaces.

I know.... I know... I should keep my my butt here in Massachusetts!

Cheers...

Gusman

[John A. Birdsall]

It seems to me that as an X-smoker that smoke tends to bother me more today than when I was a chain smoker. And the cost of those cigerettes are now unbelievable. When I quite it was $.35 per pack, now well thats another story.

I would like to see the state pass a bill that would ban smoking from the lakes region, and especially on the lakes. Think of all them filters that are thrown into the lake and the ducks having to eat them, or the salmon thinking they are lures and eating them. Then someone catches a fish and now are eating cigerette filters. You know even the wet down nicotene are not good for the fish, It turns salmon into a pinkish color.

So all you smokers, go to the designated smoking area LA, or NJ

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by John A. Birdsall

{snip} You know even the wet down nicotene are not good for the fish, It turns salmon into a pinkish color.

I'm no fish guy but I thought most people liked smoked salmon.

And I know "Mee" likes certain years of Smoking Loon ....

And ... hang on ....

(Yes dear, I'll stop now. No, I have no idea when I last took my meds.)



.

[SteveA]

From the USAToday:

Smokers and Overweight people save us all money

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...man/ncjf49.htm

[Chris Craft]

Originally Posted by Gatto Nero

It looks as though it is starting to happen the right way. Here is a link to the Citizen that discusses several Meredith restaurants banning together and going non-smoking. Congrats to them for doing the right thing.

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...-1/citizen0103

Imagine with out the need for a new law. My guess is that they will benefit from their decision and others will fallow quickly. Some will not and they can have the smoking clientele. I have walked out of many bars due to smoke but respect that others enjoy it. It was not big deal, I just took my business to another place

[Brewer720]

It used to be that when my wife and I were in the mood for a QUIET meal we would go into a restaurant and ask to sit in the smoking area even though neither of us smoke (well, ok I like the occasional cigar but I don't feel that one or two a year makes me a smoker).

I employed this strategy because it seems that in this day and age people no longer know how to be PARENTS to their children. Instead they seem to want to be their children's friend and let them carry on in whatever way they wish. They also seem to obsess that their child's pink little lungs remain that way forever so people with children never seemed to be interested in sitting with the smokers.

Fine, I was always willing to use my lungs to filter a little smoke out of the air in return for a quiet meal, but now that big brother is stepping in and making all restaurants totally smoke free I find that everytime that I go into a restaurant I have a noisy squawky little troll of a child sitting right next to me.

I have an idea. Let's put up another wall and dedicate an area of every restaurant a "child free" area where people who have children won't be allowed to dine. It sounds like a great idea if they won't let me sit with the smokers any more.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by SteveA

From the USAToday:
Smokers and Overweight people save us all money

OK, then...forget people.

Abandon tobacco smoke for your dog's sake!

[NonVoting Taxpayer]

For all you people who think smokers cost the state a fortune in Medicare bills. Here's a novel idea. Why not take the $177 million raised by cigarette taxes annually in New Hampshire and dedicate it only for health care of smokers not covered by insurance. Would that stop your argument? Not advocating smoking but there are two sides to every story.

I second the motion for a kid's free zone in every restaurant. Maybe we can get that passed next after they get done with the smoke free areas and more decals on our boats.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by NonVoting Taxpayer

I second the motion for a kid's free zone in every restaurant. Maybe we can get that passed next after they get done with the smoke free areas and more decals on our boats.

Excellent idea. This was one reason the Coe House was one of my favorite restaurants - NO KIDS ALLOWED!

[Brewer720]

Wait a minute, you used the past tense in referring to the Coe House. I don't get to the lake nearly as much as I like to and when I'm there for a weekend Saturday night dinner is at the Coe House not only for the great food, but for their rather intolerant attitude toward bratty children. Please tell me that it's still going strong and that your use of past tense was only a mistake.

[MaidenCove07]

Child-free restaurants - I'm there with (quiet) bells on.

I hate having a nice dining experience ruined by someone else's brat.
What's wrong with people? Kids DO NOT belong everywhere their parents go.

And how do they afford a meal at $12+ dollars times their 2.5 (and frequently more) "spawn"....much of which is left on the plate.

I was raised "children should be seen and not heard" and expect that from EVERY other parent in a restaurant.

I'm getting my wish with the smoking issue....I'd be OK if kids were next.

[SAMIAM]

Brewer,the Coe should be open by the end of April.The new owners will,I believe,allow kids but with so many rooms,I'm sure they'll all be put together out of harms way.When we ran it,the policy was adults only but ,often ,people would ask to bring in a well behaved child and we welcomed them .I guess it's PC now to allow your kids to throw temper fits in public....we didn't tolerate it in that setting.Occasionally,we'd get a complaint but mostly people thanked us and heartily approved. It's funny,even the parents of young children appreciated a night out without screaming,running and silverware banging.Not to mention the clean up at night.....no thrown food to worry about.Don't get me wrong...my little grandkids do lots of screaming as I chase them around, scare them and throw them in the water we love it......just don't want to hear it in nice restaurant.

,

[Smitty1]

Your attitude about kids is pathetic!!!!!!!

Stay home and have peace and quiet!!!!

Originally Posted by MaidenCove07

Child-free restaurants - I'm there with (quiet) bells on.

I hate having a nice dining experience ruined by someone else's brat.
What's wrong with people? Kids DO NOT belong everywhere their parents go.

And how do they afford a meal at $12+ dollars times their 2.5 (and frequently more) "spawn"....much of which is left on the plate.

I was raised "children should be seen and not heard" and expect that from EVERY other parent in a restaurant.

I'm getting my wish with the smoking issue....I'd be OK if kids were next.

[Sunrise Point]

I don't think that people who want peace and quiet (and a good meal) should have to stay home to find it. I don't get out to eat much anymore but when I do, having a out-of-control child or oblivious parent at the next table can ruin a meal.

I don't hate children, I have 3 of my own.

I did have to chuckle about sitting in the smoking area to escape sitting near children...I have done it too in the past.

[MaidenCove07]

Sunrise - you hit it on the head.
We aren't child haters...just people who shouldn't have to duck flying mashed potatoes or scramble out of the way of wayward toddlers while paying more than $12 an entree....

[Sunrise Point]

I think that for what you pay when you go out for a meal, you should expect good food and a pleasant experience.

[Brewer720]

Originally Posted by Smitty1

Your attitude about kids is pathetic!!!!!!!

Stay home and have peace and quiet!!!!

Thank you, you illustrated my point perfectly!!! I threw it out there, and it took a while for someone to take the bait but finally I can set the hook.

Yes, and if you want to enjoy fresh air you can stay home and do it.

[rander7823]

I agree with you on the kids being out of control, however they don't cause cancer to the poeple sitting aruund them. Also, if that parent was to apply some old fashioned disipline there are probably 10 people in that same restaurant complaining about the noise that would report those parents to the authoities for child abuse. I have 3 girls ages 12,11 and 9. They sit politely in the restuarant order filet and salads and the occaisional Lobster Bisque which make the wait staff look at us oddly for comfirmation. They understand going out is a privilege and not a right. And if they acted up we would leave with doggy bags and there would be consequences.
Now let's talk about the rude behavior of the 60+ crowd who we have to dodge on our roads and sometimes when their foot slips on the pedal our living rooms.

[Woodsy]

Amazing... great points of view!

We as humans were blessed with the greaest gift.... individual choice! Slowly but surely our individual choice is being taken away piece by piece... and we let it happen.

The government has required warning labels on cigarette packs since the 60's... people know its bad for them yet continue to smoke. The government knows its bad and very expensive from a health care perspective, yet they haven't banned cigarettes? Why? Because they love the tax revenue!

I am not a smoker, but I don't think smoking should be banned... Let the business owner decide what is right for his business. I personally go to non-smoking establishments because thats my choice.

If the state or feds wants to increase revenue, I have no problem with an increase on tobacco products or alcohol.

Woodsy

[Brewer720]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Amazing... great points of view!

We as humans were blessed with the greaest gift.... individual choice! Slowly but surely our individual choice is being taken away piece by piece... and we let it happen.

Woodsy

You're right Woodsy, and you just happened to push my "hot" button, but let me explain why.

I was at an air show some years ago and they had a B-17 that you could take a tour of. As I exited the aircraft I saw a photograph of a squadron of B-17s and one of the planes was falling out of formation, inverted, and smoking badly. As I looked at this photograph an older gentleman approached me and informed me that the plane that was falling out of formation had been his aircraft and that it had just been shot down over Austria. He and the rest of the crew had bailed out and had survived but had spent the remainder of WWII in a Nazi POW camp. I shook his hand and thanked him for the sacrifice that he and so many others had made protecting our country. What he revealed to me next saddened me greatly. He told me that if I really appreciated the sacrifice of veterans I would treat the freedom and liberty that they all fought and died for with more respect. To quote him, "We didn't fight and die to preserve the particular brand of freedom that we are forced to live with today. If you get on a motorcycle you HAVE to wear a helmet... if you get in a car you HAVE to wear a seatbelt... even your dog has to be licensed and on a leash at all times. If you really appreciate the sacrifices that were made to protect freedom you would be putting up more of a stink every time the government tried to take some of it away."

I tried to inform him that I share his oppinion of government intrusion into my life and hopefully I made him understand that there are those of us out there that not only don't NEED the governemt running our lives, but also don't even WANT the government to run them.

So there it is, the opinion of a man who put it all on the line to protect our country and the ideals that it was founded on. I wonder how many other veterans, especially those of the "greatest generation" feel the same way?

[rander7823]

I have no problem with the government getting out of our business as long as they don't come looking to me for tax dollars to support the stupidity of others.
Oh wait that's how they get elected.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Here is the link on WMUR...
http://www.wmur.com/news/8507752/detail.html

Link doesn't work. Could it be that the "news" is a year old?

I'm seeing that the ban passed the Senate three weeks ago, according to this:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ie/r...teno=14&body=S

[John A. Birdsall]

Did I hear Food Fight??? Someone always have to ruin the fun.

[10 Year Cycle]

Good Day Folks!


First off I would like to introduce myself as being a new member of the forums and a new Resident of NH.

With that said, coming from another state where the state government increasingly decides your daily activities and increasingly reaches into your wallet, I have to say I and my family Love NH for the climate and culture found here.

It is my feeling that less government is good, more government is bad. The government has no place mandating personal choice. No matter how Nobel the cause. Doing so risks turning our form of government socialistic, and further away from a free republic or democracy. It should only cross that line and do so with maters that threatens to destroy the structure of society and government in which we live. Smoking is not one of them.


Don't change a thing NH, This state is the best kept secret on the eastern Seaboard, a slice of heaven and from my travels, the closest thing that resembles the form of government our forefathers had intended.

One think I will risk saying, and I can say because I am not a native New Hampsherite by birth, I am only here a little more then a year in fact. There is a risk to New Hampshire’s way of life with too many folks moving here from out of state. They end up wishing to change it to what they felt was good about the place they left behind.

If it was so good, why did you leave? If you feel NH Government should dictate personal freedoms, mandate personal responsibility and legislate liberty, please feel free to go back to the state from which you came.

DON'T take it for granted.
DON'T become complacent.
DON'T LET IT HAPPEN NEW HAMPSHIRE!

I was not born here, but I would die for the State we now call home.

DON'T CHANGE A THING!

[SteveA]

We are also transplants. I agree with the comments you made.

The good news is that we have found that NH "people' have not changed much in the 20+ years we have been here in the Lakes Region. Still friendly, still willing to stop and gab.

When I go "home" to the Boston area I'm keenly aware of the massive changes "down there".

"I am not a native New Hampsherite" reminds me of a funny story I was told soon after moving to Gilford. It goes about like this:

A young couple moved to NH.. and met a local "native" oldtimer. In conversation the newcomer stated "While I know I'll never be a native New Hampsherite.. at least my children will be"

The reply from the oldtimer was.. " If your cat had kittens in the oven.. you wouldn't call them muffins.. whould you? " Seems it takes more than just being born here to become a real New Hampsherite.

Enjoy your time here and welcome to the best Forum anywhere..!

[rander7823]

I'd like to see them try this at Fenway during a Red Sox v Yankee game.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/305898_booban03.html

[dpg]

Originally Posted by MaidenCove07

Sunrise - you hit it on the head.
We aren't child haters...just people who shouldn't have to duck flying mashed potatoes or scramble out of the way of wayward toddlers while paying more than $12 an entree....

Oh come on is it really that bad??? I agree, stay home. Kids are kids not the family dog.

[Rose]

Why would parents bring young children to a restaurant where the average price for a complete meal is over $50 per person? Get a babysitter. And certainly, don't let your children run around the restaurant screaming and doing a clog dance on the wooden stairs while you sit at your table yelling "Artemis, come here...Artemis, stop that...girls, behave." Why should my celebratory dinner be ruined because of parents who can't control their kids? And it's just teaching them that they can act however they want wherever they want.

My dog behaves better than that, and he's much cuter.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Rose

Why would parents bring young children to a restaurant where the average price for a complete meal is over $50 per person? Get a babysitter. And certainly, don't let your children run around the restaurant screaming and doing a clog dance on the wooden stairs while you sit at your table yelling "Artemis, come here...Artemis, stop that...girls, behave." Why should my celebratory dinner be ruined because of parents who can't control their kids? And it's just teaching them that they can act however they want wherever they want.

My dog behaves better than that, and he's much cuter.

If one can afford to bring their children to a restaurant, why shouldn't they bring them?

[Rose]

Originally Posted by chipj29

If one can afford to bring their children to a restaurant, why shouldn't they bring them?

I didn't say they couldn't, I said I didn't understand why they'd want to.

If their children are well-behaved, fine. But if they're not, they should stay at home with a babysitter until they are mature enough to handle it.

I know it's an old-fashioned notion, but parents need to set boundaries for their children, not coddle their every whim. Unless of course, those parents don't mind me imposing boundaries on their children when they infiltrate my mine.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Rose

I didn't say they couldn't, I said I didn't understand why they'd want to.

If their children are well-behaved, fine. But if they're not, they should stay at home with a babysitter until they are mature enough to handle it.

I know it's an old-fashioned notion, but parents need to set boundaries for their children, not coddle their every whim. Unless of course, those parents don't mind me imposing boundaries on their children when they infiltrate my mine.

I agree, there's way to much coddling out there now.

[Sunrise Point]

Rose, you're not too old to "get" it. Attitudes have changed in the last several years and I'm often not sure what to make of some parents.

I try to put myself in their shoes and wonder, are they too tired to deal with the children? Did the sitter cancel at the last minute? Is this restaurant meal the first contact they have had with the children since early AM when they left for work?

I don't know the answers.

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by Grant

Amen. While not a smoker or a fan of smoky places, I am vehemently opposed to the "Nanny Nation" nonsense being rammed down our throats in this country. Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, smoking bans...where do common sense, self preservation and responsibility come into play?

As a SCUBA diver of Lake Winnipesaukee's clear waters, you'd be opposed to a Bottle Bill from "The Nanny Nation" ?