*
The Irony Of It All
Brad Hollerbach

Proposed Ordinance Inspires A New Smoker

Posted Tuesday, December 7, 2010, at 12:00 AM

Comments

View 10 comments or respond
Community discussion is important, and we encourage you to participate as a reader and commenter. Click here to see our Guidelines. We also encourage registered users to let us know if they see something inappropriate on our site. You can do that by clicking "Report Comment" below.
  • Right on Rick. I am a non-smoker - but if someone wants to smoke let them. Denny's always smells like an old ashtray, so I just don't go there - that is my choice and Denny's choice about losing my business. I can get the same thing at Bob Evans, at it is smoke free. Freedom of choice.

    Good point about alcohol. I have never read about a fatal accident where "smoking" was a contributing factor. I have never read about a bar fight caused by "smoking". And I can't remember "smoking" cited as a reason for domestic violence or abuse.

    -- Posted by ParkerDaws on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 8:26 AM
  • The whole dam thing is ridiculous.

    -- Posted by Turnip on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 8:27 AM
  • You must not have to sit next to a smoker all day at work.

    -- Posted by Make no mistake about it on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 11:53 AM
  • No I don't, MNMAI. Our office has been smoke-free for some years. I believe we went smoke-free partly due to insurance purposes. Smoking is still allowed on the company property, but outside the building.

    I would probably support an ordinance that focused on office buildings, but this particular proposal is far too broad and targets businesses -- specifically restaurants and bars -- that don't need to be targeted.

    What I would like to see is a list of the smoking policies of the public places in the City and what those policies are. I believe that most places are smoke-free -- by choice -- and that this proposal is trying to apply the beliefs of some on the businesses that aren't toeing the party line, so to speak.

    Thanks for reading.

    -- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 12:11 PM
  • Brad, I agree with you. I think it should be up to the business owner to decide, especially when it is their business that may potentially suffer (or profit).

    I suddenly envision "smoke-easys" popping up in dimly lit areas of local bars should it pass.

    I understand both sides of the argument, with a seeming catch 22 firmly dividing both sides. My right to smoke my cancer stick & my right to breath in air devoid of your cigarette's taint. I just think it should be up to the establishment to make the call. Allow/don't allow smoking? Fine, I'll go somewhere that they DO allow/prohibit it.

    -- Posted by Kllrfsh on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 1:28 PM
  • Brad, also given your pointing out the "indoor" omission from public places in the terminology, you may enjoy what happens for simply not including an "at".

    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/12/01/the-case-of-the-school-bus-the-stop-sign-and...

    -- Posted by Kllrfsh on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 1:32 PM
  • Kllrfsh,

    Great illustration of the value of a proofreader. In this case, it looks like the Virginia legislators were just sloppy. Not so sure that is the case with the proposed local smoking ordinance. This might be more crafty than sloppy.

    Think of all the public places that could be covered by this lack of the word "indoor." The city sidewalks. Privately owned parking lots used by the public. Your car might be private, but what about the city streets you drive on? Or what about the parts of your own private property, that have public easements?

    The one saving grace for this ordinance if it is enacted will be enforcement. Who's going to do it? I think our police have better things to do than to search out nicotine fiends smoking under the bleachers like my vice principal from high school.

    Or will a citizen's brigade form whose sole mission is to scatter out across the city and tattle to 911 whenever they see a someone holding a Marlboro in a prohibited area?

    TFR

    -- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 2:20 PM
  • I dont smoke, never have, and I never will. HOWEVER. If I am going out to a bar, then I know what to expect. This is like someone going to the dragraces then complaning about the smell of fuel.

    Again, It just amazes me how fast Americans are willing to give away rights. We'll fight and die to protect them. But we'll give them away when ever asked

    -- Posted by timexx on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 4:36 PM
  • Oh busy busy are the busy little bees with nothing better to do than make life busy for everyone else. They should stick to their own honeycomb and leave others alone.

    -- Posted by voyager on Tue, Dec 7, 2010, at 9:00 PM
  • My property, my taxes , my cigarettes , my life work, my decision.

    The city can also look forward to lawsuits unending, just like every other city that tries this.

    Just google smoking ban lawsuits and read the thousands upon thousands going on right now. Is Cape ready for this kind and amount of litigation?

    -- Posted by hanover on Wed, Dec 8, 2010, at 9:39 AM