UL: What do you think of the smoking ban?

[Rochelle]

Go let them know how you feel!

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=SURVEY%3a+What+do+you+think+of+a+restaurant+smoking+ban%3f&articleId=65a111b4-3bd1-4f00-a6ad-013384df06d7

[cathleeninnh]

Done.

Anyone else?

Cathleen

[Insurgent]

Yep. I said that the State needs to protect the workers 
(kidding)

[Kat Kanning]

Done:

I oppose a smoking ban.  While I hate being in a place where people are smoking, I believe it is entirely up to the business owner what happens on his property.  I have the choice whether to go into a smoking establishment or not.  People have the choice whether to work there or not.  This problem can be handled quite to my satisfaction by the free market.

[Kat Kanning]

I also put it on the action items

[Lloyd Danforth]

Chime

[eques]

This is what I'm submitting:

Absolutely oppose.  A smoking ban is a flagrant violation of individual property rights.  In my experience, the vast majority of restaurants in New Hampshire already disallow smoking, so such a ban is as meaningless as it is unethical.

The state motto is "Live Free or Die."  What does it mean when the state violates its own slogans?

On another note, why haven't they banned being outside during the summer from 10-3 without adequate sun-screening aids?  Surely skin cancer is just as deadly as lung cancer!

[KBCraig]

Done:

It has been argued that New Hampshire should ban smoking because the rest of New England has. I'm not moving to NH because I want to live just like MA or VT. I want to move to NH because I want to enjoy living as free as possible.

I wear a seatbelt, but not because it's the law. I wear a motorcycle helmet, even though it's not required. After we move, we will maintain automobile insurance, because it's responsible, not because it's required. And, I will patronize smoke-free restaurants because I prefer them, not because the law restricts my choices.

I have no problem finding smoke-free restaurants even in areas where smoking is legal, including New Hampshire. There is no need for a law which bans smoking, or trans fats, or anything else which people freely choose.

Do not ban smoking. It's the choice of the business owner and patrons, not the government.

[Pat McCotter]

Done.

If the legislature wants to protect people from the hazards of smoking then ban cigarettes in NH.

If the legislature wants to protect people from the hazards of everyday living then take over their lives and tell them what they can and cannot do - in excruciating detail.

How did we get along for over 200 years without the government meddling in affairs of personal responsibility?

[KBCraig]

Here's the column that came from this:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Smoke-+free%2c+or+be+free%3f+Informal+poll+finds+a+sharp+division+on+proposed+ban&articleId=77867373-b6bc-4d49-aa0e-30332a49d583

Smoke- free, or be free? Informal poll finds a sharp division on proposed ban

By BENJAMIN KEPPLE
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff

Granite State residents are evenly split on whether to ban smoking in restaurants and bars, an informal Internet survey of New Hampshire Union Leader readers has revealed.

One group believes a smoking ban would keep patrons and employees free from hazardous secondhand smoke. Also, they don't like dining out in a pervasive, stomach-turning haze of tobacco smoke.

The second group believes the free market should determine whether a business owner allows smoking. Also, this group thinks the government shouldn't stick its nose in the matter.

"I oppose the ban, although I am a nonsmoker," wrote Manchester resident Kysa Crusco, one of about 60 who responded to the UnionLeader.com poll. "I believe the government has no right to tell a private business whether they can allow smoking. The market will dictate whether a business should allow smoking, and it already has with several places, like Shorty's and the Wild Rover (Pub, in Manchester) going non-smoking."

In February, the state Senate voted 17-7 to ban smoking in eateries and cocktail lounges. The bill was then sent to the House, where a measure to ban smoking easily passed last year.

The state Department of Health and Human Services would be charged with enforcing the ban.

The bill's prime sponsor in the Senate, Sen. David Gottesman, D-Nashua, and co-sponsor Sen. Robert Odell, R-Lempster, have said the bill would improve public health and protect workers and customers alike from secondhand smoke. That's an argument that got a lot of support in the New Hampshire Union Leader's informal survey.

"In this day and age, knowing what is known about so-called secondhand smoke, it is intolerable to permit smoking in any public place, including restaurants and bars," wrote Bedford resident Richard Mandeville.

"Secondhand smoke causes many chronic and acute health issues, such as asthma and cancer," wrote Laurie Pellerin of Manchester.

Health wasn't the only issue for those who supported a ban. The smoke itself was a big consideration.

"I'm tired of going to bars, restaurants, etc., and leaving these establishments smelling like an ashtray," wrote Manchester resident Pete Gonzalez.

"It really is a plus at making a dinner out a more memorable evening. You can actually enjoy the taste of your food without it being compromised by the horrible smell of cigarettes," wrote Jeannine Forbes, a former New Hampshire resident who now lives in Fort Myers, Fla.

Those opposed to a ban saw things differently. Even those who said they didn't smoke, and made of a point of frequenting restaurants which didn't allow smoking, saw the ban as an infringement of rights.

"I'm tired of government telling us what we can and cannot do," wrote Darlene Roy of Alexandria.

Those against a ban also saw it as excessive.

"This is supposed to be the ?live free or die' state, not the nanny state. I do not smoke, and if a restaurant chooses to allow smoking, I eat elsewhere. It's all about free choice," wrote Bedford resident Kevin Richardson.

"We don't need to become a nanny state like Massachusetts. Let the business owners decide if they (want) to allow smoking," wrote Lee Ann McCarthy of Londonderry.

[Rochelle]

Anyone from the boards get quoted?

[cathleeninnh]

Not me.



Cathleen

[error]

Anyone from the boards get quoted?

Heh. I imagine if they wanted to quote us, they could just come over here and read what we're saying, like that one reporter claims to do (but she comes over here, reads what we're saying, and writes something else entirely).

[Kat Kanning]

The second group believes the free market should determine whether a business owner allows smoking.

That might have been from what I said.

[toowm]

I didn't save what I wrote, but they didn't use my new state motto: "Live Safe or Get Fined."