Up In Smoke 2 (Domestic Edition)

As goes Thailand goes Rhode Island, the latest state to ban smoking in most public places.

The nice twist here? Various nonprofits, such as the Knights of Columbus, have a long exemption from the rules, which take effect tomorrow.

Comments

[Douglas Fletcher]

I wonder if this will do anything to get the Mafia out of Providence (I'd heard they were there, anyway).

[Charles Hueter]

The city of Austin imposed a more stringent smoking ban last year, then lightened it slightly. Now, another group wants to tighten things almost to the point of a total ban.

"They" are really never satisfied.

[Deoxy]

I am one of the "they" you seem to be mentioning...

but I would be satisfied (on tabacco, anyway) with just banning smoking.

Snort it, snuff it, chew it, liquify it and shoot it up for all I care, but only do it to YOURSELF. When you smoke, you share with all around you, so any place that allows smoking and has public access should at least be required to post warning signs.

And yes, that's a libertarian view - your rights stop at my nose.

[Brian]

"And yes, that's a libertarian view - your rights stop at my nose."

Not if your nose is on my property and I want people on my property free to smoke... take your nose elsewhere.

[SixSigma]

Yeah Brian -

Doxy - What about my right as a small business owner to decide whether my customers can smoke or not? I know the BS argument that the staff doesn't have a choice, but I'm small enough that I'm sure they can not only find other employment, but probably higher paid.

[narwhal]

so any place that allows smoking and has public access should at least be required to post warning signs.

Why? Can you not see and smell the smoke, do you need a sign to tell you it's there? In all seriousness though, why should places that allow smoking "at least be required to have signs," why shouldn't places that don't allow it "at least be required to have signs," warning smokers that their habit is forbidden?