Arizona's smoking ban takes effect tonight »
Posted by: TomBiro 1 year, 4 months ago221 Comments Report this Story
The smoking ban in restaurants, bars and other public indoor areas takes place in Arizona tonight at midnight.
Read Full Story at azcentral.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 221
-
-
60%
TednGilbertAZ1 year, 4 months ago
I did, also, but not as much anymore. We moved here for that expressed purpose when I was 10. Phoenix was a top 50 city back then and the Valley had a population of half a million. It's now about 4 million and ranks fifth going on fourth... that's some serious growth.
Many moved here for their asthma or allergies (yes, they are two completely different health issues) back then, however, unfortunately, there were few if any regulations on types of domestic plants to grow and oleanders, citrus and other types of pollens amassed amongst the suburban sprawl and housing booms. Now, we have our own unique sets of lung-related/allergy-related problems as a result. Go figure.
Let me state for the record that I voted proudly for this bill... as well as the Prop. 200 English-only bill. This state needs to be reigned back in from all the excessive red tape and spending. No longer can restaurant/bar owners get sued, clogging up our courts, when someone gets emphasema or lung cancer. Good move.
Reply-
100%
m-simon1 year, 4 months ago
Tobacco is an anti-depressant.
Not to fear. When tobacco is no longer legal criminals will supply it.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whi...
Reply
-
-
-
100%
WCFIELDS1 year, 4 months ago
This is just crazy! U.S.A. is a FREE Country. Illegal Immigrants and the minority Legal Citizens should be able to smoke, urinate or take a crap anywhere in any cafe, bar or business of their choosing. This is also a Free Speech issue! Smokers often use their cigars and cigarettes to jab in the air to make a point. Smoke is often blown in the faces of those they disagree with. (I know, I know, ...in the faces of those with whom they disagree.)
Reply-
0%
joeblowe1 year, 4 months ago
Hey, you are crying before you are hurt. I didn't see anything there forbidding urination or crapping - just smoking. Ease up, you've still got two out of three. And as we all know, that ain't bad.
Reply-
0%
WCFIELDS1 year, 4 months ago
No, No! Public urination is a crime in many areas. Some nearly innocent perverts have been pinned with a "sex offender" label for such behavior. Of course, they may have been wavin' it around a bit too much, I don't know. The U.S. Constitution says, and I quote, "Shake it more than three times and you're Playin' with it."
Reply
-
-
100%
BishopBeaver1 year, 4 months ago
What a ridiculous comment! WCFIELDS just forgot to mention that we should be able to hurt or kill those we don't like since it's a 'FREE Country'. And, we should be able to pick up anything we like that we see in a store. Oh, but that would be stealing! But what the heck, we should be free to steal too, since it's a 'FREE Country'. And since it's a 'FREE Country' we should all feel free to walk into WCFIELDS' place of residence anytime we feel like it. You know, it is a 'FREE Country'.
Reply-
0%
WCFIELDS1 year, 4 months ago
Beave, I was making fun of smokers who physically injure others with their smoke. The smoke itself. They always like to ignore THAT actual aspect and shout about their "Rights". So, I usually respond with a fair comparison such as crapping on someone's table in a cafe or similar. You didn't do well in High School, did you?
Reply -
0%
beachboy60001 year, 4 months ago
The Government, as always, is trying to have it both ways. They tell you that if you own a club, you cant have people undertake legal activity on that property. Smoking is harmful they say. Yet, the government make hundreds of millions of taxing cigs.
I am willing to bet far more innocent people are killed by drunk drivers than by second hand smoke. Why not ban liquor? Hell, if smoking is so bad (and yes I do not smoke and DO think its horrible) why not just have the guts to make smoking illegal.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
100%
jaern1 year, 4 months ago
Agreed, but in Michigan there are luxury taxes on cigarettes. I believe packs sell for $5.90. While the loss of smoking places will be great and help nudge smokers into quitting, I wonder what the State gov't will take up next.
Reply-
0%
DeadHead131 year, 4 months ago
It isn't the government's job to 'help nudge smokers into quitting.' I am sick to death of this bullsh*t "We know what's best for you" hubris. We are supposed to be a nation of liberty, yet we deny individuals a right to even their own body. Certain drugs are illegal, prostitution is illegal, it is illegal to not wear a helmet or seat-belt in some states, and it is all bullsh*t. It is my Fu*king body and I will put anything I want to in it.
Reply -
0%
Existential1 year, 4 months ago
I understood your comment. That's a good point. The government isn't going to like the revenue loss.
Reply
-
-
0%
m-simon1 year, 4 months ago
We don't have near enough criminals in America.
If we add tobacco smokrers to the list cops will have a lot more choices about who to arrest.
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand
Tobacco is an anti-depressant.
Reply
-
-
0%
jaxguy1 year, 4 months ago
smoking was banned in Florida restaurants who serve food last year and it is great. people can still smoke in the bars but it's really nice to not have to breath cigarette smoke at a restaurant.
Reply -
0%
xjustpeachyx1 year, 4 months ago
I really must say that since the No Smoking Ban started in Massachusetts, public outings are hmore enjoyable. Yes, I know it's nice to be able to sit down at your favorite restaurant and enjoy your favorite cancer sticks, but being able to go out and enjoy a smoke free enviroment is just wonderful and much more healthy.
Reply -
100%
saneman1 year, 4 months ago
If smokers could keep their smoke to themselves, then there would be no ban. Maybe, smokers should invent something which would confine their smoke to their immediate space, and not allow their smoke to be inhaled by others.
Reply-
0%
joeblowe1 year, 4 months ago
How about something as simple as an inverted fishbowl? Wouldn't cost too much, and shouldn't be THAT hard to add on an airtight collar mechanism to keep the filth from escaping. Might be some difficulty getting any oxygen IN, but the people wearing them obviously don't care about that so it shouldn't be an issue.
Reply -
100%
jaern1 year, 4 months ago
Remember the old Welch's commericals with the steam trapped top? They could invent a hat for smokers with the same idea!
Reply -
100%
DeadHead131 year, 4 months ago
SMOKERS DO KEEP THEIR SMOKE TO THEMSELVES; IT'S YOU IDIOTS WHO ARE TAKING THAT AWAY FROM THEM!
These are not PUBLIC places we are talking about; restaurants and bars are privately owned businesses. If the owners want to allow smoking that's their god damned right. You are kidding yourself if you think the smokers haven't been on the defensive for a long time now.
Reply-
0%
TOD3961 year, 4 months ago
And you are kidding yourself if you think that a smoker doesn't offend those around him when he lights up. Second hand smoke causes problems. Therefore, if smokers know this, and continue to light up in the presence of others, they are deliberatly affecting the health of those around them, and that is a criminal act. So, instead of telling smokers that they can't smoke in PUBLIC places, like restaurants, they should be told to not smoke around other people. I kinda like your train of thought. But be careful, if this logic catches on, you will have far less places to smoke than you do now. If this happens, even if you smoke around another smoker, you would be breaking the law.
Bottom line, the smoke released form a cigarette is harmful to anyone who breathes it in. Eliminate that potential, and I back you up all the way.
Otherwise, stop harping on the errant fact that restaurants are private places. Once they obtain a business license, they are a public place.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
4cprocess1 year, 4 months ago
What about restaurants and bars that would want to cater to the smoking crowd? Where are their rights? This is a rights issue and a ban is ludicrous and one day will be ruled unconstitutional. There are already certain restaurants that have no smoking policies and the ones that do not, invest money in equipment to adress the smoke.
You've probably guessed that I am a smoker by now but I just find it totally unfair to treat smokers like outlaws. Remember, it is currently legal to smoke in this country! I am offended by a lot of things other people do and I don't get all bent out of shape about it. It's called tolerance and I can tell you it no longer exists in this country. If it does then you may want to put it on the endagered species list!
Here's the definition from Webster's "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own".
cont.
Reply-
-
0%
BishopBeaver1 year, 4 months ago
Me thinks that thou knowest not how to think.....FREE Country.
Reply
-
-
0%
joeblowe1 year, 4 months ago
I never heard of a restaurant that WANTED to cater to the smoking crowd. The only application of that is to keep the playing field level. Ask anyone who owns a restaurant they will likely tell you that they would MUCH prefer to keep their entire establishment non-smoking. The smoke causes a LOT of very expensive damage. Renovations must be done a LOT more often or the place soon begins to smell like a used ashtray and even smokers won't go there. I've been in places like that so a denial is futile.
Reply-
0%
DeadHead131 year, 4 months ago
Are you on some kind of medication? If the owner of a restaurant doesn't want to allow smoking, all he has to do is put up a no-smoking sign. You can deny service to anyone you want to, smokers included. Restaurants and bars allow smoking because they want the business, and because they don't care if someone wants to exercise their right to light up a cigarette.
Reply
-
-
0%
TOD3961 year, 4 months ago
Wow, now that's the best argument I have heard yet. Because it has a pack of cigarettes as it's sign, and it's called Smokee Tavern, and the lot is full, then smoking is a good thing. Did you ever stop to think that maybee it's got nothing to do with the sign, or the name? But maybe it has something to do with, Oh never mind, it's like talking to a wall
Reply
-
-
-
100%
4cprocess1 year, 4 months ago
I have always been a "courteous" smoker. I pay attention to people around me (especially children) and if it appears that they are being bothered I either put it out or leave to a less infringing area.
How would Americans feel if all strong perfume was banned? How about loud music in restaurants? What if people with piercings visible to the public were not allowed? How about people with screaming children? What about people with the pants hanging to their knees or other revealing apparrel? I could go on an on. People neet to wake up now and see that this is the stepping stone for the eradication of personal rights. At least allow some (those that want to) restaurants to "advertise smoking allowed". I've heard all these whiners that always say "well what if I wanted to eat in there or drink in there?". My answer would be.. "why the hell would you want to?".
cont.
Reply-
100%
4cprocess1 year, 4 months ago
These restaurant pay taxes which supports the community like everyone else does so where in the hell does the "local and state" govt. have the right to impose a "ban" on their clientelle?
cont.
Reply -
0%
joeblowe1 year, 4 months ago
Strong perfume ban - OK with me. Loud music in restaurants - shouldn't be happening. Visible piercings - disgusting, but don't really harm anyone else, much. Screaming children - definitely should be banned from public. Bagging pants - I think indecent exposure laws could already be made to cover that -- too bad the cops never enforce it. (Fine looking young women can reveal as much as they like, I won't object {;>)=) This does NOT eradicate personal rights, rather it enforces them. It enforces MY right to not breath used tobacco when I am in a public place.
Reply
-
