No smoking...

[mojo1701]

They passed the law in Brantford about a year ago as well.

I remember before the law, there were two Tim Horton's across the street from each other. One was smoking, one was non-smoking. The smoking one's gone, now.

 

[Arnwyn]

It's been like that for a while where I'm from, as well.

And indeed, it is great.

 

[WayneLigon]

On January 1, almost all restaurants here became totally non-smoking, even for those with a bar. I say 'almost' because there must be some exception that I'm unaware of; a few still have smoking at the bar but most don't. Both a locally owned place and two chains I frequent that have bars are also totally non-smoking.

We don't have a general 'all public places' smoking ban yet, but most are anyway and have been for some time.

 

[Kanegrundar]

It's moving that way in my neck of the woods, but it's meeting more determined opposition here. There are places that people can go where there is no smoking, so those that do smoke want their hangouts left alone, which is all fine with me. I don't like the idea of the government micro-managing our lives. What's next? A return to the days of prohibition? I hope not.

Kane

 

[mojo1701]

What's next? A return to the days of prohibition? I hope not.

Kane

Yeah, but there's a difference between banning smoking in public places, and a total ban on alcohol. Besides, it's not as if when you drink alcohol, it somehow works its way into another's bloodstream.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Yeah, but there's a difference between banning smoking in public places, and a total ban on alcohol. Besides, it's not as if when you drink alcohol, it somehow works its way into another's bloodstream.

True, but who's ever heard of someone dying because they got hit by someone who had too much to smoke? I'm not saying that smoking isn't a health hazard, but drunk driving is a much more serious problem, yet the government doesn't talk about banning booze (at least not yet).

Kane

 

[der_kluge]

True, but who's ever heard of someone dying because they got hit by someone who had too much to smoke? I'm not saying that smoking isn't a health hazard, but drunk driving is a much more serious problem, yet the government doesn't talk about banning booze (at least not yet).

Kane

Yea, cause they know that doesn't work. (i.e., prohibition) They already tried that.

 

[Mr. Lobo]

What's up in Maryland

Here's a link to some info about anti-smoking legislation for Maryland. Ironically, the link is pro-smoking ban but I am emphatically anti-ban.

Smoke Free Maryland

I certainly don't know about the restaurant biz, but I favor the idea that any ban should come from the owners not the government.

 

[mojo1701]

True, but who's ever heard of someone dying because they got hit by someone who had too much to smoke? I'm not saying that smoking isn't a health hazard, but drunk driving is a much more serious problem, yet the government doesn't talk about banning booze (at least not yet).

Kane

But smoking will ALWAYS lead to problems. Drinking is only if you've had too much, and not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Here's a link to some info about anti-smoking legislation for Maryland. Ironically, the link is pro-smoking ban but I am emphatically anti-ban.

Smoke Free Maryland

I certainly don't know about the restaurant biz, but I favor the idea that any ban should come from the owners not the government.

I agree entirely. If an owner wants to run a smoke-free establishment he should be able to and does without the government stepping in and making laws. The government has too many more important things to worry about than smoking laws.

Kane