No lighting up, even on sidewalk?

Jarred Postell, a smoker, says he thinks people should be allowed to smoke outside, so he doesn't support the idea of a ban on lighting up on a section of Elizabeth Avenue.

[Mazed]

Addressing smoking on the campus and leaving a broad swath in the middle where all the smoking focuses just makes no sense at all.

Something as clearly destructive of futures as smoking has no place at an institution dedicated to creating and brightening futures.

[MrOwl 1939]

Huh!!!!!!

[discusseded]

It is unfortunate that the other thread in this forum captured most of the comment. This article gives far better information.

Here is a link to the college website, for a FAQ on the smoking policy scheduled to take effect in January. It doesn't include the Elizabeth St. sidewalk issue, as that needs to be a city rather than a college decision.

http://www.cpcc.edu/tobaccofreecollege/faq/qu...

[NEOMI]

That is pretty strict. Thanks for the info. I don’t smoke but people in my family do.

As far as the bars go,it may change.

If the amount of alcohol sold drops dramatically it might change to you can smoke in bars that don’t sell food. That is a long shot though.
They changed it in Florida to no smoking allowed in restaurants, but it is in bars. They define the difference by the ratio of alcohol sold to food sold.

[just candid]

All public property such as sidewalks, buildings, motorized equipment ect. should be smoke free. All places open to the public should also be kept smoke free.

[discusseded]

NEOMI wrote:

<SNIP>They changed it in Florida to no smoking allowed in restaurants, but it is in bars. They define the difference by the ratio of alcohol sold to food sold

This is a fairly common approach. Many places have found this to be a "middle ground" and a step in the process. This sometimes leaves bar owners holding the bag for expensive remodeling done to comply with regulations aimed at limiting the harm from SHS in bars.
The idea that people whose skill set suits them for working in a bar should not be forced to choose between appropriate employment and a healthy work environment--added to public health concerns related to the consumers--often trumps the idea that "bars are smoky", but it is usually a harder sell than protecting the rest of the community is.
Because of this, smoking regulations are often watered down to exempt bars, at least initially, rather than deny people protection in other places because of the obstinacy of the smoky-bar lobby.
More and more places are discovering, though, that restricting smoking indoors results in entirely new issues with outdoor smoking. The increase in sheer volume of SHS outside smoke-free venues is raising red flags that often result in restrictions beyond the front doors.
Smokers, of course, scream at being forced to go outside, or to walk 20' from the door. The problem is, it is not the law but the addiction that forces them to do these things. Until that addiction can be dealt with, there will continue to be problems. Once the addiction is taken out of the picture, I don't think anyone will care outside of the tobacco companies and their investors.
Smoking cessation product manufacturers may have to write off existing stock at that point, but most will likely find far better directions for their efforts.

[Freedom]

just candid wrote:

All public property such as sidewalks, buildings, motorized equipment ect. should be smoke free. All places open to the public should also be kept smoke free.

Smoke free motorized equipment...

ROLMAO

Tell us Candid...do you really want "smoke free air"?

Would you be willing to apply your sides ridiculous standard of "no safe level" to all forms of smoke that contain known carcinogens...or only to those you do not like?

Just what other forms of smoke have "no safe level"?

There is nothing more annoying than a self righteous moral busybody with HUGE double standards.

[Freedom]

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
The idea that people whose skill set suits them for working in a bar should not be forced to choose between appropriate employment and a healthy work environment--added to public health concerns related to the consumers--often trumps the idea that "bars are smoky", but it is usually a harder sell than protecting the rest of the community is.

Oh brother...what a bunch of self righteous non-sense.

Tell us...do welders have the right to "smoke free air"?

How about the poor fry cooks who go home reeking of the meat addicts carcinogen of choice?

Where is their right to "smoke free air"?

Now....perhaps you will finally tell us all about these other forms of smoke that have "no safe level"?

How can there be a safe level for welding smoke...and "no safe level" of tobacco smoke?

Your positions are laughable at best.

[discusseded]

Ah, well, "PrettyDumb" has arrived and we can look forward to "partly spammy" weather now.

[Freedom]

discusseded wrote:

Ah, well, "PrettyDumb" has arrived and we can look forward to "partly spammy" weather now.

Tell us oh socialistic name changing narcissist with no answers...you do know the people are tired of your beloved Nanny state...right?

The more you control freaks push...the more people you wake up.

Now why don't you be a good little Nanny statist and go find some soda drinkers to spew your divisive hatred towards?

[just candid]

For the good of the people and the future of the US, there should be a tax on any product using corn syrup as a sweetner. Soda is one of the worst, but just one of many such products.

[just candid]

Keep our sidewalks smoke free. Keep our sidewalks cigarette butt free or, charge tolls (perhaps an extra $5.00 deposit per pack/refundable) for butt chucking smokers who use them.

[Freedom]

just candid wrote:

For the good of the people and the future of the US, there should be a tax on any product using corn syrup as a sweetner. Soda is one of the worst, but just one of many such products.

Good lord...you have really swallowed some kind of Orwellian pill.

Tell us Candid...what should the tax be for a pound of red meat?

How painful would you like to make it for the meat addicts?

[Freedom]

just candid wrote:

Keep our sidewalks smoke free. Keep our sidewalks cigarette butt free or, charge tolls (perhaps an extra $5.00 deposit per pack/refundable) for butt chucking smokers who use them.

How much for fast food meat wrappers and soda cups...oh silly one?

How about a chewing gum deposit of $5 per pack? Those filthy gum chewers have sabotaged my Stacy Adams many a time.

*snicker*

Seek help Candid.

[just candid]

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
How much for fast food meat wrappers and soda cups...oh silly one?
How about a chewing gum deposit of $5 per pack? Those filthy gum chewers have sabotaged my Stacy Adams many a time.
*snicker*
Seek help Candid.

I'm not realy for a toll as such. What i'm thinking of is more like a butt deposit of say $0.20-30 per cig butt.(I realize it would have to be less than the orig cost of the butts) At that rate I suspect there would be few chucked butts..;~)

[just candid]

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
Good lord...you have really swallowed some kind of Orwellian pill.
Tell us Candid...what should the tax be for a pound of red meat?
How painful would you like to make it for the meat addicts?

If one figured in the suffering caused by Factory Farms and the TRUE cost to the environment to produce such meat, the cost per pound for red meat whould, as it should be, be sky high.

[Freedom]

just candid wrote:

<quoted text> I'm not realy for a toll as such. What i'm thinking of is more like a butt deposit of say $0.20-30 per cig butt.(I realize it would have to be less than the orig cost of the butts) At that rate I suspect there would be few chucked butts..;~)

You ignored the point silly.

How much for fast food meat wrappers and soda cups?

How about a chewing gum deposit of $5 per pack?

Makes sence in your world does it not...or do you have HUGE double standards as usual?

[Freedom]

just candid wrote:

<quoted text> If one figured in the suffering caused by Factory Farms and the TRUE cost to the environment to produce such meat, the cost per pound for red meat whould, as it should be, be sky high.

So in other words...tax the crap out of the meat addicts after the smokers and the soda drinkers.

Correct?

Where do the drinkers fit into your self righteous plans?

[just candid]

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
So in other words...tax the crap out of the meat addicts after the smokers and the soda drinkers.
Correct?
Where do the drinkers fit into your self righteous plans?

Alcoholics should be allowed to spend a lot of time in rehab even if they don't really wish to. The tax on drinks is going, and has gone up in MD, and that's fine with me.