Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Smokers like Goof...

January 1, 2011...the day that Pinkie Master's died.

Of note from the article:
They also worried that smokers like Matt Crider, who works downtown but lives on Wilmington Island, will head outside the city limits and outside the limits of the new ordinance.

"I don't want to smell the smoke in a restaurant. I agree with that," he said Monday as he curled against the wind on a cigarette break near Reynolds Square. "But at a bar, there's an age limit. If you aren't 21, you don't get in. And to make someone of legal age go outside to smoke a cigarette, that is wrong."


6 comments:

Barstool69 said...

the day Stinkie Masters died

This will drastically cut down on my dry cleaning bill

Chris said...

Honestly, I didn't notice that South Carolina had a smoking ban until I first got back down here and went to the City Market Wing with Joe and D. Aaron, Esq. It's pretty awful. Having spent the last 3 years on "the other side," trust me, it's going to be great.

Patrick said...

It will also drastically cut down on your freedom, slowly but surely, even if you don't smoke.

I. If the rational for banning smoking is protect people from the nuisance of second-hand smoke, there is already an option: choose not to go to those bars that allow smoking. It should be up to the property-owner or manager whether smoking should be permitted, not Big Brother.

II. If the rationale for banning smoking is to reduce healthcare costs, then what should stop the city from banning trans fats or any lifestyle choice remotely dangerous? I mean, let's just go ahead and close down Five Guys and every McDonald's in the City of Savannah right now.

The solution to rising entitlement costs due to unhealthy or unsafe individual lifestyle choices is to limit government, not freedom. If entitlement costs are skyrocketing due to people that smoke, those people should be forced out of Medicare, or they should be forced to pay higher premiums than everyone else.

Looking to government first is not the answer. The city has every right ban smoking on public properties. It should not, however, be allowed to ban it on private ones.

Eversmart said...

As a "fair weather" (AKA smokes when he drinks...) smoker- I must say this- I choose to drink in the smokiest, diviest bars on the East Coast. There's the rub- I CHOOSE to drink there. In 1919 they ratified Prohibition- which told citizens they couldn't make the choice to BUY a drink. Now they won't even let you ENJOY a cigarette in a public place of others' choosing...

Barstool69 said...

My best answer is that it's just one of those things that will be better in this particular way and won't serve as a precedent.

Joe said...

The ban is really hamstringing smokers who, we all know, really only smoke to look cool. That's beside the point however. When laws are made that prohibit what someone may do on private property, the path is paved for other far-reaching regulation. Want to ban fast food? Swearing? Racial slurs? All this will do is force smokers to sit outside to try and look cool and litter.

I'll take one more swing at the dead horse by saying that the choice of where to drink has always been in the hands of the consumer. If a little cigarette smoke upsets your little delicate baby lungs, then go to a restaurant. The best bars are, and always have been, smoky places.