206: Smoking

krepitch · October 22nd, 2006, 09:04 PM

PROP. 206 -- SMOKING

The issue: Non-Smoker Protection Act. Would ban smoking in some indoor public places. Exceptions include bars and separately ventilated bars within restaurants and other establishments.

The impact: If approved, the measure would take precedence over local smoking ordinances, such as the ban in Tempe. Health groups say that would be a setback in their anti-smoking efforts. Many businesses believe smoking never should have been banned in bars.

The players: Backers include former Arizona Gov. Fife Symington and Bill Weigele, president of the Arizona Licensed Beverage Association. The main financial backer is a tobacco company, R.J. Reynolds.

Pros: Those who favor the Non-Smoker Protection Act say it would respect property rights of small-business owners, particularly bar owners.

Cons: Critics say it could end up damaging the health of many Arizonans.

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/sp...ot2006-ON.html

jenna2891 · October 23rd, 2006, 01:08 PM

i'm the only one who voted yes for this?

dreamcastrocks · October 23rd, 2006, 01:11 PM

I voted Yes too.

You have to be an idiot to not know that smoking is harmful to you and everyone around you. Millions of people still do it. Yes without a second thought.

jenna2891 · October 23rd, 2006, 01:21 PM

i hate smoke and everything about the concept of smoking, but telling people what they can and can't do with their own property is ridiculous. now, don't get me wrong, i love that i can go to a bar in tempe and come home without reeking of smoke. i would miss that if it were gone, but i can't vote against it just because i prefer it.

Linderbee · October 23rd, 2006, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jenna2891

i hate smoke and everything about the concept of smoking, but telling people what they can and can't do with their own property is ridiculous. now, don't get me wrong, i love that i can go to a bar in tempe and come home without reeking of smoke. i would miss that if it were gone, but i can't vote against it just because i prefer it.

I don't understand your reply. If you vote no for this, then smoking would still be legal in public, aside from any local laws against it. Voting yes bans smoking in public places. By your statement, I would have guessed you'd vote no on both propositions.

Chris_Sanders · October 23rd, 2006, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jenna2891

i hate smoke and everything about the concept of smoking, but telling people what they can and can't do with their own property is ridiculous. now, don't get me wrong, i love that i can go to a bar in tempe and come home without reeking of smoke. i would miss that if it were gone, but i can't vote against it just because i prefer it.

I was at a bar today and I saw a sign from the bar owner begging people to vote No on 206 and yes on 201.

The caption was "Hospitality workers deserve a smoke free work place as well. Without a level playing field where all smoking is banned, this simply isn't feasible."

This is why the restraunt and bar industry supports 201 and the tobacco companies support 206. The tobacco industry is hoping to confuse voters.

Linderbee · October 23rd, 2006, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Sanders

The tobacco industry is hoping to confuse voters.

We have a winner!

NO on 206, YES on 201!!

DKCards · October 24th, 2006, 08:39 AM

How about NO on both.

I can not stand smoke and will even leave a place if the smoke is too bad. But I don’t think it is right to tell business owners that they can not allow smoking in their place. Especially bar owners, because most of there customers smoke when visiting their bars. Besides, how are we going to replace all that tax revenue we get from people buying cigarettes? So 201 is out for me.

Prop 206 states that it will only allow free standing bars or ones attached to restaurants that have adequate ventilation systems installed. The problem with this proposition is that there is absolutely no teeth in it. The only enforcement of this is against the smoker themselves. There is no punishment for the owner of the establishment. So they can ignore any part of this that they want to. And I really can not see the police force enforcing this on the smokers. Prop 206 will also preempt any city, town, or county laws. So once voted in that is the way it will be until it can be voted out.

If they both fail then it will stay the way it is now where the local municipalities will have control over it.

NEZCardsfan · October 24th, 2006, 08:44 AM

I vote YES. Of course.

Derm · October 24th, 2006, 03:51 PM

between 201 and 206 which will I choose?

Chaz · October 24th, 2006, 03:53 PM

How about none of the above?

RedStorm · October 24th, 2006, 06:39 PM

I will probably vote yes on both 201 and 206. That way I will not be splitting my vote as a proponante of non-smoker rights. You know all those bad smoking people won't be splitting there vote. They will vote no on both so we good non-smoking people should vote yes on both.

AzCards21 · October 25th, 2006, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Sanders

"Hospitality workers deserve a smoke free work place as well. Without a level playing field where all smoking is banned, this simply isn't feasible."

I'm sorry but that is just moronic.

Chris_Sanders · October 25th, 2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzCards21

I'm sorry but that is just moronic.

No it is the nature of free enterprise. If some bars take a stance that they will not allow smoking, then they will lose business elsewhere. The restraunt and bar industry is highly competitive and no one wants to make the first move. Thus, you don't see any bars that don't allow smoking unless the city demands it.

While you may think it is moronic, the Hospitality industry overwhelming supports this measure. Places like New York and Colorado have passed similiar state wide bans and have seen no real loss in business. Smokers just go outside and smoke.

In the perfect world, smokers would go outside on their own instead of polluting a confined area...but that doesn't happen.

In a perfect world, you wouldn't find more cigarette butts on the ground than in an outdoor astray, but that also doesn't happen.

AzCards21 · October 25th, 2006, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Sanders

No it is the nature of free enterprise. If some bars take a stance that they will not allow smoking, then they will lose business elsewhere. The restraunt and bar industry is highly competitive and no one wants to make the first move. Thus, you don't see any bars that don't allow smoking unless the city demands it.

While you may think it is moronic, the Hospitality industry overwhelming supports this measure. Places like New York and Colorado have passed similiar state wide bans and have seen no real loss in business. Smokers just go outside and smoke.

In the perfect world, smokers would go outside on their own instead of polluting a confined area...but that doesn't happen.

In a perfect world, you wouldn't find more cigarette butts on the ground than in an outdoor astray, but that also doesn't happen.

If the bar attending public wanted a non-smoking bar it would flourish in a free enterprise system. You're basically telling me there is no demand for non-smoking bars, so in order to get the wish of people that don't go there anyway, we need to pass a law so nobody can have a bar allowing smoking. It's moronic.