Just to be clear - in my state, "the gov't" had nothing to do with law passing. It was an initiative started by the people, voted by the people, and passed by the people.

"The Man" had nothing to do with it. Keep in mind a lot of laws and regulations are created and passed this way. So let's refrain from the negative comments about gov't regulations and gov't "oppression" please.

well, ok, but in Virginia, I don't think it could happen that way.

Boy, this is like being on a treadmill, sure it consumes time, but it gets us nowhere!

I live in Tennessee and smoking in restaurant was banned about year or two ago. i kind of enjoy it.

Now, if a bar or pool hall want to allow smoking, they should be able obtain a permit. All smokers could go to one bar while all non-smokers goes to another bar. it sets off a business competition or a economical win-win situation.Smokers got their bar, non-smokers got their bar, and the government got additional revenue from the permits.

Scientific fact no doctor has ever diagnosed a patient's sickness as caused by second hand smoke.

Where's the proof behind this statement?

The more freedoms you give your government the more freedoms they will take so be careful what you ask for.

I'll ask this question again. Why is the smoker's "freedom" to smoke more important than the non-smoker's "freedom" to not be subjected to that smoke? Why should the smoker trump the non-smoker?

Show me proof it does exist

Why should the non-smokers trump the smoker?

Are you aware of how many things have the probability to cause cancer?

I think it should be left up to the individual who owns the establishment if they want smoking or not. If you know an establishment allows smoking and you enter then you enter at you own risk.

Scientific fact no doctor has ever diagnosed a patient's sickness as caused by second hand smoke.

Where's the proof behind this statement?

The more freedoms you give your government the more freedoms they will take so be careful what you ask for.

I'll ask this question again. Why is the smoker's "freedom" to smoke more important than the non-smoker's "freedom" to not be subjected to that smoke? Why should the smoker trump the non-smoker?

Are you aware of how many things have the probability to cause cancer?

We should also ban the sale of diet soda's in restaurants...

Cell phones are said to be cancer causing too!

Show me proof it does exist

Well you were the one who made the claim were you not?

Anyways, children develop astma, bronchitis, and pnuemonia that is directly attributable to being in homes where their parents smoke.

Why should the non-smokers trump the smoker?

I never said that they should.  I just asked a question that still has not been answered.

Are you aware of how many things have the probability to cause cancer?

Tons of stuff.  However, there are only 15 things that are classified as Group A carcinogens.  Tobacco smoke is one of those 15.  It shares that group with lovely stuff like asbestos, benzene, etc.

I think it should be left up to the individual who owns the establishment if they want smoking or not. If you know an establishment allows smoking and you enter then you enter at you own risk.

Agreed.  

I said that much earlier in a few different responses.  I do like the outcome of the IL laws though!!   ;D

Why should the non-smokers trump the smoker?

I never said that they should. I just asked a question that still has not been answered.

It has been answered by several of us here.You haven't been trying to listen and being a little hardheaded on the subject.

Nobody trumps one another....we get it you rather have everything "non-smoking" and leave us smokers out.Yet when a building allows smoking you guys ***** just like we ***** that we can't smoke.

It's a two way battle of opinions and nothing will get solved or is gonna be fair on either side.

Jesus....I'm done with this one.

I think we're all done...

Goodnight Irene.

-Kent  a.k.a. roadwarrior

Global Moderator