PA Does It Again!
Fear not! The government of our fair Commonwealth has stepped in protect us by passing the clean air act...no more smoking in public places...breath easy. All I can say is, it is about time. I am tired of worrying about things myself, tired of making my own decisions. I bet business owners are really happy that they don't have to worry about making their own decisions either, the Government will take care of that!
What stuns me is that they exempted private homes! Talk about a flaw...I mean, sometimes I sit here and think "if only the government could come into my house once and a while and tell me what I can and can not do." Maybe they can find a way to check over my books and let me know what would be good to read and what should be given the fahrenheit 451 treatment, at least it would protect second hand readers from catching something...say freedom?
- hotfire's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer friendly version
- send to friend
- 642 reads
You're forgetting that it's the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, so it's never simple either. To meet the needs of various constituents who may be lining the pockets of our legislative and executive branches, they were compelled to exempt 1) establishments that derive less than 20% of their revenue from Food (bars) 2) Private clubs and 3) Casinos - surprise, gambling's no good if you can't chain-smoke while doing it.
To me this issue is a simple "will of the people" type of decision - just put the issue on a general election ballot - if a majority of the people vote to ban smoking in public places, it's banned. No need for all of these exceptions. Same with gay marriage or civil unions - if the majority say no, the answer's no.
Be sure to clear out your "adult" reading materials before you invite the government in to inspect your books.
The PA smoking ban/clean air bill is long overdue. Approx. 30 other states have some form of non-smoker's rights law in place. Yes, we so have the right to breath clean air! Yes, we are offended by the stench! No, we can't bear watching another loved one or friend die from lung cancer! I don't like gov't involvement in my life - but this is a huge exception.
I just hope the law includes provisions that smokers must use the BACK entrance to take smoke breaks. Nothing like seeing (and experiencing)dozens of smokers right at the store front entrances smoking it up. (Wal-Mart, Kuhn's and all those stores in the Cranberry Mall.)
During a 4th grade school field trip, I hearded about 10 children through an alcove/entrance into a building downtown. In this alcove, about 7 or 8 employees were on their 10th smoke break of the day and the whole area was engulfed in a billow of cancer inflicting, poison spewing, second hand smoke. One child was asthmatic and coughed for quite some time afterwards. (You see, those with asthma are sometimes sent into an asthma attack when exposed to second hand smoke. Some have even died from it.) She was too big for me to carry at the age of 10 and our whole group almost missed the bus as we were lagging behind because she could not breath.
The lining of the pockets is the ONLY reason this has taken so long. Believe me, the slimy government does NOT belong in our private lives. Politicians are all snakes. But this is a huge health issue that needs and deserves attention.
Luckily nobody in that gauntlet of smoke you had to run with those kids was smoking the rare, but dreaded, Peanut-Based cigarette. Then you could have experienced the double-whammy of a food allergy and asthmatic reaction!
That would have indeed been awful. :)
I so agree! I used to live in an area that has had a smoking ban in place for over 20 years. The people survived, the businesses survived, it was better for everyone.
Well,look on the bright side...more outside "smoke breaks" :)
Big Macs & the like ... when is the PA State government going 2 start snatching them out of people's hands ... no matter what your age &/or weight &/or health status ... that # of fat grams *can't* B good 4 anyone!! ... And, IF something isn't good 4 anyone or at least not the majority … is it *not* the DUTY of the government 2 step in & tell us each what 2 do ... I mean take China for example... that government knew the score ... in 1979 said overpopulation was a problem & wham, a law was passed: "One-Child Policy" ... rumor has it that they are just now considering repealing it ... & do you know why, because in China they smoke so much due 2 the stress of constantly having the government enact laws that R in their best interest …. Now they *need* more babies …
~Faith
PS & what about 2 much caffeine ... or what about some of that cheap stinky perfume that can give some of us migraines upon smelling it from a mile away ... & what about those of us allergic 2 some flowers & such ... is the PA State government going 2 outlaw those flowers??? I want answers, I deserve answers && I want them now!!!
PPS Big Mac lovers fear not ... Big Mac's have 34 grams of fat & of course competitor Burger King countered w/ their Whopper that has 67 grams of fat -- so the researchers at McDonald's are about 2 unveil a new & improved … bigger better *fattier* Big Mac (faster 2 clog those arties up ... more than all the rest combined) ... how many grams does this Big Mac have you ask? It is rumored 2 have NINETY-THREE ... that's right 93 grams of fat ... hmmm where is the government now ... probably at McDonald's snarfing down those healthy 34 gram Big Macs ... U know, B4 all that health food they eat is gone 4 fast consumption …
Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions
By NORIMITSU ONISHI
Published: June 13, 2008
AMAGASAKI, Japan — Japan, a country not known for its overweight people, has undertaken one of the most ambitious campaigns ever by a nation to slim down its citizenry.
Ko Sasaki for The New York Times
A poster at a public health clinic in Japan reads, "Goodbye, metabo," a word associated with being overweight. The Japanese government is mounting an ambitious weight-loss campaign.
Average Waist Sizes of Japanese and American Men and Women Summoned by the city of Amagasaki one recent morning, Minoru Nogiri, 45, a flower shop owner, found himself lining up to have his waistline measured. With no visible paunch, he seemed to run little risk of being classified as overweight, or metabo, the preferred word in Japan these days.
But because the new state-prescribed limit for male waistlines is a strict 33.5 inches, he had anxiously measured himself at home a couple of days earlier. “I’m on the border,” he said.
Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population.
Those exceeding government limits — 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women, which are identical to thresholds established in 2005 for Japan by the International Diabetes Federation as an easy guideline for identifying health risks — and having a weight-related ailment will be given dieting guidance if after three months they do not lose weight. If necessary, those people will be steered toward further re-education after six more months.
To read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?partner=rssnyt&e...
Second hand smoke.
No one is shoving a big mac down my throat, but second hand smoke is in the air and I do have to breath.
If you want to consume 12 cups of coffee each day, that does not affect me. Second hand smoke is in the air and I do have to breath.
Fat vs. second hand smoke?? I'm done.
should indeed be able to smoke themselves silly...
1. In their own home
2. On their own property
3. Outside, but NEVER at the entrance of any store front as we don't want to even see you smoking those disgusting things as it reminds us of the loved ones we've lost to the nasty habit. Oh yea - and we don't want to smell that stinkin' stench either.
4. NEVER around or in a car with their children or anyone else's children as that is child abuse pure and simple. I was an *abused* child so I've been there/done that. Oh - did I mention I was premature (mom was a smoker, remember??!!) and had asthma??
5. It should be illegal for pregnant mothers to smoke - again, child abuse, pure and simple.
This is feel good legislation...a no brainer for the politicians to jump on board. When's the last time you were exposed to 2nd hand smoke for more than a few seconds. "I had to run the gauntlet of people smoking outside a building." WAH! Faith's point is right and you know it...if the government was really interested in someone's health they would go a lot further than this. I bet more poeple die from drunk drivers than second hand smoke...ban booze I say, don't I have the "right" to not get slammed into by someone who might be drink. It's stupid.
Plain and simple, this makes people feel like they are doing something good. It doesn't mean anything. And sorry Voice, it is total BS for the government to stick their noses into private business.
Band wagon jumping..."other states do it." So what. Really...SO WHAT?
I had to quit the league.
There is a bowling alley in the South Hills that is smoke-free by choice. Business is better than ever!
Faith's arguments are weak and you both know it.
Drunk driving IS ILLEGAL!
The bowling alley went smoke free and is packed...the owner made the right decision! Don't you see, it should not be up to the government!
Drunk driving is illegal...but I guess our laws suck because over 500 people a year die because of it...the government needs to do more, and I say outlaw liquor.
If you don't want to smell 2nd hand smoke, why do I not have the same right to not get hit by some idiot who gets drunk and gets in his car? Rendell, I need protected! Get real!
I cannot & will not debate this particular subject on the blog ... this is one that needs 2 B done face 2 face ... this is about the government telling me what 2 do & taking away my right 2 make a decision 4 myself ... Now, I realize that this piece of the debate is the apple 2 the portion of the debate that is orange (i.e., second hand smoke)
Respectfully, ~Faith
PS What I have written is as real, if not more, that all of the arguments wrt second hand smoke ... it falls in2 the category of why this country was founded ... it is why letting one guilty person go free is better than locking up N innocent people ... avoice, if U personally have been fortunate never 2 have your civil rights as an American citizen trounced upon – & I do not mean an overreaction or some stupid sort of thing – I mean as in U find yourself as a law abiding citizen feeling much like U have (through no fault of your own) been transported 2 another country where citizens do NOT have civil rights … if this is the case in your own life, than I am quite envious of U ... 4 once a law abiding citizen encounters such an instance in their own life ... these issues that our country was founded on become personal, they become real ... they R the very ones that permit us 2 blog freely here & debate the issue of second hand smoke, so as the very foundation of this law you feel passionately about, these rights need 2 be considered as strongly if not more, yes?
I'm sorry, but no way is a ban on smoking infringing on someone's civil rights. The Big Mac argument doesn't hold water at all. The smoking ban protects the non-smoker. If I enter into McDonald's and choose to eat a salad and the man at the next table chooses to eat 5 Big Mac's it doesn't affect me or the other innocent people sitting around him. He has to deal with the consequences of his personal choice. However, if that same man chose to eat a salad instead and also smoke a pack of cigarettes, that would affect me. His choice would affect all the innocent people around him by forcing us to breathe his second hand smoke. I see smoking more as an infringement on my civil right to clean air.
I am very conservative and tend to always vote Republican. I do have a few hot button issues and smoking is one. I don't even want to start a debate in Western PA on my views regarding gun control. . .
How often do you smell second hand smoke? Does it bother you that much or do you just like to complain? I think you just like to complain. It's a nice easy target to hit that really means nothing.
This country is a bunch of cry babies.
Go have a cig...it'll calm your nerves - or so I hear.
Go ahead, call me a cry baby. It makes you sound more ignorant to the fact that MANY people can't stand walking into a restaurant where maybe a bar is located to the front of the establishment and we might have to sit and wait for a half an hour for a table - all the while inhaling the toxic poisons coming from the bar area very close by. That's just one example.
Get a box of kleenex and go cry somewhere else.
"It's not a democracy unless you are p***ed off once in a while." Janis Joplin
"I don't like the smell....WAH WAH WAH!" Grow up.
I don't like hyper-sensitive do gooders who have nothing else to worry about other than someone smoking a cigarette at a bar.
Great comeback!
That kind of nonsense doesn't help you prove your point at all. If all you have are weak arguments, then all you have are weak arguments. I'm crying real hard. You're the one who'll have to take your habit elsewhere.
Yes, it is about the smell - but it is about a lot of other things as well. I'm not going to re-write my comments, but I've made other points as well - good ones that cannot be argued.
An excerpt from your recent comment:
***I have nearly always found it 2 B the case that the mark of an individual who either actually is *or* perceives themselves 2 B “losing” their side of the issue being debated commences 2 the level of attacking the individual that they R debating with, & the issue is no longer 'present'. Sadly, it certainly appears, that this is just what U appear 2 have done to Titan Lee. Now I realize that sometimes our emotions get the best of us, myself included & I certainly do *not* wish 2 remotely imply that I am any exception 2 this happening ... i.e., one's emotions building up enough 2 steer (if only 4 a moment) one's actions, & I believe & hope that this is the case wrt your post ... ***
Have you never told anyone, "Awww...you're full of it!"? Meaning, I don't believe or agree w/ you. Something went way over my head here, I guess.
Also, read Hotfire's comment to me (above). Does that sound like someone who was winning a debate, resorting to calling me a crybaby-WAH, WAH? That sounds like a personal attack to me, but I found it quite funny because it is obvious that he had nothing of more substance to bring to the table.
You, however, would not go there and I do appreciate that. You are much more level-headed than he.
Have a great day!
Enjoying the 'code'...haha could read and understand most but not all...That is not a 'first' with me though! haha
~* chanel *~
Avoice ....
I'm sure I have done this (told some they were just full of it) during at least one debate (formal or not) but def NOT B4 the oposing individual had deterioriated 2 the point that they were just attacking the messenger (namely me), so 2 speak ... I do hope U 2 have a great day !!! && all of the other bloggers checking in are having *great* days 2 !!... I plan on really reading top down this blog so I haven't skipped something that was relevant ... Pls see PS :)
~Faith
PS I confess I have not read thoroughly everyone's posts on this particular blog -- that said ... I did read HF's initial, all of yours, avoice, & then posted several myself ... my offer still holds 2 meet f2f ... we don't have 2 debate a single thing ... promise lOL
huh?
~* chanel *~
At least you have the freedom of choice-you can leave that establishment and go to a smoke free one. It is the fact, that the government once again, will be taking away the freedom for a business owner to allow smoking in thier establishment, that they own & pay taxes on. Smokers, within 90 days, will have no choices, thanks to the government. You think ,because one bowling alley is doing a fabulous business now that they are smoke free, that all establishments will fare as well. Not. People in bordering Ohio towns come into Western PA so they can have dinner, a drink and a cigarette, meanwhile hurting the Ohio businesses.
People that live in PA also go to OH to dine as to avoid smoke-filled restaurants.
They (smokers) will have choices, though. I don't think the legislature will be as tough as I, personally, would like it to be...but, whatever. At least more attention is being brought to the tremendous health issues associated with this problem.
One day we'll all look back and say, "Remember when restaurants used to have a smoking section?" Just like now - remember when you could smoke IN the workplace??? That is unimaginable to me.
concerned parent. Yeah, that fat vs. smoke thing is the weakest argument of them all.
Also, about the bowling alley thing. The one in S. Hills went smoke free because they knew it was better for their employees and customers...as should other establishments.
I, however, had to quit my league here in this area. I do not travel to the S. Hills to bowl (a friend of mine tells me how happy she is that she does not have to put up w/ the stench any longer...) So, I do not have the right to join a bowling league. My rights have be infringed upon...if you want to take it to the level Faith talks about in her recent comment. My rights were infringed upon before I came into this world...premature baby, upper respitory problems my whole life, and now I cannot join a bowling league. I'm not speaking on just my behalf but for all others like me.
I guess a consequence of living the majority of my adult life in a smoke free county (outside of PA) is that I have NO tolerance to cigarette smoke anymore. I guess that is a consequence I'm willing to accept for living a smoke free existence. I have asked to change tables in restaurants when a non-smoking table is too close to the smoking section. When exposed to smoke, I start to have an allergic reaction--eyes tear up, get congested, sneeze, etc. I just can't tolerate it anymore.
Avoice & CP, you are both wrong.
Faith & HF, you are both correct.
I have decided who was correct, therefore the debate is over.
You're full of it. Are your eyes brown?
You all just know you've lost the debate. :)
I know, I know...you've got to die of something, right? LOVE that argument too!!
Avoice, I was really surprised 2 read your comment wrt asking TL if his eyes were brown ... !! UGH !! ... This is *exactly* why debating on a blog is *so* not the way 2 go … f2f (face 2 face) *is* the only way …. Plus, given all of your previous posts (passionate, well written, intelligent … even if U & I did not always see eye 2 eye) … this is *not* the kind of thing I thought U would “stoop” 2 in order 2 make your argument wrt this (or any other) issue.
Avoice ... i really have come 2 expect more of U... I thought that perhaps one day U & I could meet, real time, & def in a no smoke zone -- & I am *NOT* being sarcastic wrt posting this – again words on a blog or email, fail, being f2f, is the only way I believe that you would know that I am being sincere wrt this. Avoice... as U will get absolutely *NO* argument from me that any place that is smoke filled is *extremely* unpleasant ... but asking someone if their eyes R brown is !!! *OFFENSIVE* !!! & U would not have asked TL this question, unless U knew *exactly* what it was 2 imply.
I have nearly always found it 2 B the case that the mark of an individual who either actually is *or* perceives themselves 2 B “losing” their side of the issue being debated commences 2 the level of attacking the individual that they R debating with, & the issue is no longer 'present'. Sadly, it certainly appears, that this is just what U appear 2 have done to Titan Lee. Now I realize that sometimes our emotions get the best of us, myself included & I certainly do *not* wish 2 remotely imply that I am any exception 2 this happening ... i.e., one's emotions building up enough 2 steer (if only 4 a moment) one's actions, & I believe & hope that this is the case wrt your post ...
Since I believe U 2 B an intelligent & articulate individual (irrespective of this post), I think U already know that in order 2 have an intelligent discussion wrt any issue, but especially those issues that R highly charged, so 2 speak, it is *imperative* 2 go *in2* the debate armed w/ (full) *knowledge* of *ALL* of the *facts* on *BOTH* sides of the issue. And I have found, that it is also helpful 2 have as solid of an understanding of *WHY* the person one is debating the opposing side of the issue feels as (strongly) as they do. One truly *should* have such a handle on both sides of the/an issue, that if asked, they should be able 2 debate/argue *both* sides w/ equal success of winning over the opposing individual's point of view. Without doing this type of homework, there is little hope 2 present 2 the ‘other’ side one’s own side of the story, in an intelligent, rational, & logical fashion, & yes, ideally, w/o one’s own emotions coming in2 play – becoming emotional wrt an issue is not the same as becoming fervent wrt an issue, at least, IMHO.
4 ... Avoice, is it truly not the hope *but* also the underlying intention of a discussion such as this & others like it, that one is able through the persuasive & logical presentation of facts, along w/ perhaps their passion energizing their side of things, 2 have the 'opposing' individual who is on the 'other' side, be brought around by virtue of their (own) examination of the facts being presented 2 them - && for them 2 come 2 the realization & see things as we see them & hence win them over 2 essentially & ultimately take up the cause *along* with us, yes?
Respectfully,
~Faith
PS I apologize, 2 anyone, including & especially Avoice, if my (passionate) post put a damper on anyone’s Father’s Day …
PPS Even though this has *no* (real) bearing on what I wrote 2 U, Avoice, above, but just in case U R wondering … then U R correct, in the words of Van Morrison, I am a “Brown Eyed Girl” … thank U very much &&& no, I am not full of ‘it’ … not now, not ever!!
I still have to finish your comment above, Faith, and I will do so in just one minute. But, what exactly do you think I meant by asking TL his eye color?
He's full of sh*t, so his eyes must be brown...that's all I was implying/joking...it was supposed to be funny.
Now, I'll go read the rest of your post.
are green...haha
~* chanel *~
but he's still full of it. :)
Now, Chanel - is that offensive to you? Or was Faith just pulling my leg wrt her recent comment? I can't decide.
Is what offensive to me? All I know is that my eyes are brown, so maybe i am full of sh*t. I don't think I made it through faiths whole blog. Not that I would ever have to defend someone, but TL is an honest guy, so take it at that!
~* chanel *~
so is my brother-in-law, honest; however, he is so full of it that it is funny. I love to hear his BS'ing stories. He elaborates, he adds a little spice to his stories, as does TL, yes? He's full of it, his eyes ARE brown, and it's fun to listen to his stories.
I thought when I called TL a sexist pig, that was much more offensive - but done so in a joking manner as was his posts about women, etc...he knows what I'm talking about.
Anyhow...have a great day!
I sure didn't walk away thinking avoice was intending to offend--just poke a little fun. I guess I'm the last person to hear the reference to brown eyes meaning you're full of sh*t. First I had heard of it. But, as the blue eyed mother of a brown eyed girl I didn't take offense at all.
BTW avoice, I thought you won the argument!!!!
It would take a lot for me to be offended in any way!...haha. I was totally jk!
~* chanel *~