[TheBagman]

In all honesty, this makes more sense than disallowing private establishments to allow smoking in their buildings as it regulates public places. I still do not like these laws, and think they are quite pointless.

http://www.nbc11.com/news/14358255/detail.html

OAKLAND, Calif. -- Officials in Oakland have passed new rules putting restrictions on where smokers can light up.

The Oakland City Council unanimously approved an ordinance Tuesday that makes it illegal to smoke in outdoor dining areas, ATM lines, parks and bus stops.

Smoking will also be banned in child care centers and municipal golf courses.

Besides prohibiting smoking in some areas, the new rules will require landlords and condominium owners to notify prospective tenants and buyers of the smoking status of units they intend to move into.

The new law will go in effect on Oct. 23.

Oakland's ordinance follows a new law adopted last week in Belmont that will ban smoking in parks, other public places and inside apartments and condominiums.

[scarymoose]

[elroypornlab]

This type of thing will keep happening until you can't smoke any were. i don't smoke but i think folks that do have rights, And should be left to there own vices.

[modest moose]

Originally Posted by elroypornlab

This type of thing will keep happening until you can't smoke any were. i don't smoke but i think folks that do have rights, And should be left to there own vices.

what he said

[TheDriver]

They should just ban smoking. Why try to nickel and dime the issue. I wouldn't care, and I'm a smoker.

[AnnonUSA]

You cannot ban smoking. The economic impact would be devastating.

Ironic as it may be, the States need people to smoke, because the taxes from the sales of cigarettes fund (of all things) Health care. In addition, many states have used the revenue from the "sin" tax of smoking to balance budgets and close budget gaps.

The most Ironic thing done with the Taxes and fines on Tobacco companies, is paying for Anti-Smoking campaigns with Cigarette Tax money!

[modest moose]

It seems to me that the government should not be able to delegate where someone can light up. This decision should be left to the owner of the business or establishment. The gov can ban smoking everywhere, and people will still complain so they might as well take advantage of capitalism. People who allow smoking in their restaurants will lose some customers, or possibly gain some who are smokers and are not allowed to smoke in other restaurants. Same goes for golf courses and child care centers.

[ßü††|맧]

People really enjoy the taxes raised by cigarettes so I say fuck 'em. I would have to move from a shit hole like that.

[TheBagman]

Originally Posted by AnnonUSA

Ironic as it may be, the States need people to smoke, because the taxes from the sales of cigarettes fund (of all things) Health care. In addition, many states have used the revenue from the "sin" tax of smoking to balance budgets and close budget gaps.

Get rid of Health Care funding. Win Win.

Originally Posted by modest moose

It seems to me that the government should not be able to delegate where someone can light up. This decision should be left to the owner of the business or establishment.

What if the government owns the establishment?

[modest moose]

Then it can make the rules. Like court houses and such, but saying you own a business on the USA land isnt the same.

[TheBagman]

Word, agreed.

[TheBagman]

Then the government could say you can't smoke while driving on their highways. Their already doing it with cell phones.

[TheBagman]

But, I happen to think there should be less public roads and more private roads. Just like I think there should be far more private land than public land.