Actually I am a non-smoker too. I think its a bad habit, but i know that people have rights to smoke if they want.

Just a matter of time, they're pretty much making the walls of cloth so to speak. It will eventually come down to what we can and can't eat, drink, watch, and read. When the take our right to bear arms, this will be the point we need to stand up in unison...cause if we lose that we won't be able to keep the government in line if there comes a time that we need to.

Too many of these type of BANS ON SMOKING LAWS come up for a public vote and since SMOKERS are out numbered, the LAWS are PASSED.

DOES THIS MAKE IT RIGHT? NO

Is this the Democratic way? GOOD QUESTION...

DEMOCRACY MUST BE SOMETHING MORE THAN 2 WOLVES AND 1 SHEEP SITTING AROUND TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT'S FOR DINNER.

thats cuz the state would have to pay the fine.....yeah....i may even be able to understand making kids wear it until a certain age like 10 or 12. But there does come a time where people need to take responsibility for his or her own actions instead of have our government tell us to. Although i think a big part of the seat belt law (and many others) is money. Instead of another tax you just make another law that you can write fines for. If they were really trying to keep us safe smoking, drinking, and fastfoods would also be illegal. Once again there is too much money in these industries. My state just passed a law where a cop can pull you over if he THINKS you aren't wearing a seatbelt. This allows him or her to check for other offenses ,which increases number of fines, not to mention, takes away the whole "probable cause" argument.

I agree with Tobias on both the smokeing law & seatbelts. Each bussiness owner should be free to make the decision that is best for his business I would personally go to smoke free places.

The seat belt law is stupid. I am hurting no one else when I don't wear one. Thank the insurance lobbiests.

I'm a smoker. That is my personal choice. I enjoy going out to restaurants etc. I don't smoke around non smokers though, common courtesy. However not all smokers have common courtesy. Do I have a problem with the smoking laws.....Not at all.
If I choose the risks associated with smoking, as do other smokers, there is no reason to subject non-smokers to those same risks. If smokers won't / don't care for the health of non-smokers then the laws are needed to protect non-smokers.

I also enforce those same rules on the job and have no problem doing it. I simply tell offenders that if I can go outside so can they.

Karma, I thank you for your courtesy, & I support your right to smoke, although I hope you will consider quitting because you seem like someone I'd like to see around for a long time!

I'm the last one still smoking in my family. The odds are that I'll quit soon. Somebody else wants me around for at least the next 500 years .

Good you have great incentive & something else to occupy your hands & mouth! Sounds like you will be succussful!

they are already attacking it with gun control laws bro. I agree ith you on this very strongly. No one will disarm me as long as my heart beats. All servicemen and women have taken an oath to defend the constitution of the united states of america against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Poloticians that try to infringe this right are, in my opinion, endangering the constitution. Most liekly washington will just it out over a few decades. They aren't nearly as stupid as people believe they are.

well technically, if you want to get down to the constitution and stuff, there is no right to smoke. Since we have rights to do whatever as long as it doesn't harm another (in theory) and since the smoke from cigarettes/pipes/etc. has been shown to cause damage to people, it shouldn't really be protected by any constitutional law, so banning it from bars isn't overstepping the bounds of the government.

I'm not saying that it is right, but I'm just saying that is a perfectly legitimate defense of banning smoking in any area that you do not own.

Personally, the scariest law I can think of off the top of my head is that anti-suicide laws. Where if you attempt suicide and fail, you can be put in jail. Now I find that the most authoritarian law ever made. If I want to kill myself, it is my decision and not the government's. I also agree with the seat-belt thing, if I don't wear a seat-belt and it get into a bad accident, the other person isn't hurt more because of it, only I am. Now there should be responsibility with that, such as a parent should keep their seat-belt on to increase the odds of them living in a crash and being able to support their kids. But ya...

the reason a seat belt is not used in a public school bus is because of the way the seats are desgined. The seats are designed to act as, well almost like, an air bag. A kid is actually safer by not wearing the seatbelt on a bus, because a seat eblt will cause their bodies to literally be shaken (and we al know what that can do to a child) whereas if hte are free to hit the front of the seat. or he back which are padded, they will not have tat back and forth shaking motion, and they will also have the padding to cushion them.

This is twisted CONSTITUTION interpretation. So you think the key is you are free to do whatever "as long as it does not harm another".

I COULD ARGUE that your mere existence HARMS ME.
The people who DRIVE CARS are HARMING ME and should be outlawed.
Any DOG bigger than a Chihuahua should BE OUTLAWED because they could harm me.

Liberty is the possibility of doubting, of making a mistake,... of searching and experimenting,... of saying No to any authority - literary, artistic, philosophical, religious, social, and even political. ~Ignazio Silone, The God That Failed, 1950

Congratulations, you have now opened the most annoying can of worms on JSH...be prepared to defend yourself now as hordes of people demand that the Constitution is not interpretable, and even if it is, that their interpretation is the only possibly correct one.

these laws are to save the insurance companies money

the govt could care less about the peoples safety

The truth in a nutshell

If the insurance companies want people to quit smoking so bad, why do they refuse to pay for the remedies that actually help people quit? Most insurance companies will not pay for anti-smoking drugs that are quite successful in helping people drop the habit.... it's ridiculous.

They refuse to pay for anything anytime they think they can get away with it. That's how they make money.

What about restaurants? Kids go to eat there with their folks. I remember when you could smoke in any food place. Non smoking sections didn't help.

And to the person that said they didn't get the 25 foot rule. Its to give the smoke some room to disperse. You don't want to walk into a cloud of smoke when entering and exiting the buildings. Plus they don't want people crowding the doorways.