|
|
||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 4 users and 33 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: Who's new
|
Submitted by Rick on Tue, 03/14/2006 - 5:57pm.
It looks like someone is actually checking up on how compliance is going with the new smoking ban. Perhaps not surprisingly, it isn't a state agency doing the checking, but a news organization. From Blogger KING:
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
|
I am not about to walk up to
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Tue, 03/14/2006 - 6:23pm.I smoked for twelve years. I can still remember what it was like to take crap from people for it.
Smoking is bad, it's terrible. I am glad that I quit, and I think everyone should quit.
It would be nice if all smokers obeyed the law, but the reality is that they don't. This is one instance where citizen enforcers will be required.
Are you willing to enforce the ban?
Many if not most of the peopl
Submitted by white feather on Wed, 03/15/2006 - 9:19am.I understand the health issue, but it goes further than that. Many businesses are impacted by this law that are “smoking
I agree with you completely,
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 03/15/2006 - 10:55am.I also understand the health issue, and agree that there could easily be a mixture between smoking and non-smoking establishments. My sympathies here fall only on the employees of smoking establishments who don't smoke themselves, while one might say they could get another job (but where? If there are ten jobs in Olympia, there are a hundred people who want them), they are basically forced to inhale second hand smoke while on the job. This is the extent of my concern for peoples' health when it comes to smoking, it's a choice, plain and simple. I am a smoker myself, and I choose to do it despite all of the information I've read. I understand completely how hard it is to quit, but banning smoking in public is simply not going to work in the interest of public health.
We need to invest more in prevention, let's get to kids before they start smoking and give them all the facts. Show them the numbers of deaths and disease that come from smoking, and most importantly, let them make the decision on their own. Making it illegal will do nothing. Remember as a kid, when mom would tell you not to do something, told you it was against the rules? I know that for me and many others, we would do it anyway. This is life, and people need to be informed and given the freedom to make up their own minds. In my eyes, it is not the gov't's job to enforce personal choices when it comes to legal activity.
I think the characterization
Submitted by chaney on Wed, 03/15/2006 - 3:36pm.I'd consider myself pretty well left of center. Personally, I believe a person should be able to do whatever they want when it affects only (or almost only) themselves. I think that prohibiting the possession and use of certain drugs is foolish. I think it turns normal people into criminals in the eyes of the law, draining police resources with no purpose, and props up black markets which hurt the economy.
That said, I also think a person should have the right to choose not to be affected by someone else's choice. When someone's decision has an affect on me, which I can't escape without being driven from activities which I would otherwise choose to pursue, then they've encroached on my freedom. I think that smoker-only bars would be perfectly acceptable, and I think that similar marijuana-oriented establishments would be fine as well. Smoking sections would be fine if they were properly separated (that is, if the cloud didn't drift over into the non-smoking section). But people should have the ability to avoid them.
Of course, the "within 20 feet" bit of this law is pretty ridiculous. Especially when I can't walk down the street without inhaling the fumes from people's tailpipes.
I consider myself to be prett
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Wed, 03/15/2006 - 2:36pm.Ye who resist I-901 knoweth n
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Wed, 03/15/2006 - 3:42pm.This is an opportunity to take a bite out of crime (so to speak) by making it harder for innocent individuals to support a rotten and immoral industry (namely: big tobacco.)
On that note:
g'day!
I'm fully aware that the Corp
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Thu, 03/16/2006 - 1:44pm.I have revealed my inner fasc
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Thu, 03/16/2006 - 5:05pm.The problem here, of course, is that tobacco is toxic/deadly - and no thanks to the practices of the tobacco companies.
I heard this in passing - so I don't know if there is any truth to it, but supposedly, in the 18th century, tobacco companies teamed up with sugar companies and began treating tobacco with sugar. The tobacco that is processed with the sugar is supposedly more carcinogenic than regular tobacco.
Of course, this could be a marketing ploy, designed to spread through the rumor mill by additive free tobacco producers. But it does make you think.
Drugs can be very harmful when used irresponsibly. That's all I am saying.