[Masthead] Mostly Cloudy ~ 77°F  
High: 91°F ~ Low: 67°F
Wednesday, July 23, 2014

That new law and unintended consequences

Posted Monday, October 8, 2007, at 9:18 AM

While many of our readers debated at length the pros and cons of the new smoking law, guess what happened?

People are already being impacted in ways they did not expect ... from the AP wire:

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) -- Tennessee's new smoking law has forced some businesses to release employees who are under 21 years old and some businesses want to change the law to protect their underage workers.

Meet 20 year-old Caitlin Grant. She has mixed drinks at the Chattanooga bar, "the Electric Cowboy" for the past several months, but now she's not old enough to enter as a customer. Because of the new anti-smoking law, Caitlin and a half-dozen other employees at the bar can't keep their jobs since a no-smoking ban inside workplaces began last Monday.

The Electric Cowboy continues to allow people to smoke inside by prohibiting anyone who is not at least 21 from entering, an exemption to the smoking ban.

"It's totally unfair and contrary to what we were told just a week ago," Grant said Friday after learning she had lost her job. "I'm old enough to smoke, to fight for my country and to serve alcohol. But they say I can't work just because somebody else smokes in the same building. How am I supposed to support myself and my child?"

I'm wondering: Does your right to not inhale tobacco smoke supersede Caitlin's right to work and support her child?


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

"The Electric Cowboy continues to allow people to smoke inside by prohibiting anyone who is not at least 21 from entering, an exemption to the smoking ban."

The business ITSELF choose to continue allowing smoking by using that exemption. If they wanted to keep all their employees then they could have simply not allowed smoking in the building PERIOD. It was their right to follow the exemption,so they have to face losing valuable employees. It's the law and that's that. They should feel bad for Caitlin.

-- Posted by stolen25 on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 9:38 AM

IF YOU ARE UNDER THE AGE OF 21, NO YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SERVE ALCOHOL!!IF YOU CAN'T BUY IT YOU CAN'T SELL IT!!

I LOVE THE NEW LAW BECAUSE NOW MY FAMILY AND I CAN GO OUT AND NOT HAVE TO SMELL THE NASTY, STINKING SMOKE WHILE WE TRY TO ENJOY OUR FOOD. I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHY ANYONE WANTS TO SMOKE ANYWAY- THEY COST TOO MUCH MONEY AND THEY KILL YOU OH AND STINK!!!!

-- Posted by jssg1975 on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 9:51 AM

I think a person that is old enough to vote, fight and die for this country should be able to decide for themsevles if they want to work in that type of enviroment.

-- Posted by Bill H on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 9:52 AM

I smoke, yet when I go out, I eat in the non-smoking section and wait until I get into MY car before I smoke. Being around ONE person that smokes is different than being around 50 people smoking at the same time.

and just because a teen is 17 on a Monday and then turns 18 the very next day, doesn't meant that they should be allowed to work in that "type" of enviroment. I would hate to think that my 17 year old that just turned 18 was working at, oh let's say, a strip club the day she turned 18.

It is not a law that you have to vote or enlist in the armed forces it's a choice so is where you work. IT'S THE LAW to not have smoking in the buildings.

-- Posted by stolen25 on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 10:05 AM

I think that is a lot of the problem here..is we let the government decide what is best for everybody.

This is something that never should have been even considered to be brought into law.

Every business should have been able to say whether or not they wanted smoking inside their building. Then if Legends allowed smoking and you didn't like it you could go somewhere that didn't allow smoking.

But instead we've allowed the government to control who businesses allow inside their buildings.

Many restaurants haven't allowed smoking inside for some time Taco Bell, Wendy's just to name a couple here in town. If Ruby Tuesday's didn't want people to smoke then they COULD have stopped it at anytime without the government saying everybody had to do the same thing.. I know they did that so they wouldn't lose business but still it isn't right to let the government make decisions for a business owner based on what some people want.

DISCLAIMER: I used Ruby Tuesdays and Legends as examples I have no idea what their views on smoking are.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 11:26 AM

It is not a law that you have to vote or enlist in the armed forces it's a choice so is where you work.

-- Posted by stolen25 on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 10:05 AM

The armed forces are not always a choice. The government can draft men over the age of 18. Where you work is not always a choice either. The 20 year old in the story above had to quit her job because a law that prevents people from smoking at her workplace also prevented her from working there. The fix is simple, change the law to allow employees to be exempt from the age requirement. I support the smoking ban, because I feel that the arguments from non-smokers are more valid than those from smokers. Why should a smoker have the right to pollute the air that a non-smoker has no choice but to inhale?

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 12:13 PM

The point is, the businesses knew in advance what that law was going to be, this particular business choose to use the exemption to allow people in their bars only over 21 to work, so people could still smoke, she needs to blame the owners, not the law. They put their greed above her need for a job.

-- Posted by stolen25 on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 12:24 PM

stolen25, I agree but I don't think the businesses "greed" came before her job. I think their bottom line did. I think that will always be the case and should be in order for businesses to thrive. They have to look out for themselves. If she needs someone to blame then blame the business, but I promise she will get quicker results if she just simply looks for another job.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 12:39 PM

Why should a smoker have the right to pollute the air that a non-smoker has no choice but to inhale?

What right does some one who drives a car have to pollute the air that non-drivers have no choice but to inhale?

Or what right does a company have to pollute the air for consumers who may or may not even use their products that have no choice but to inhale?

I am not by any means saying smoking is a good thing but you surely can not believe that air pollution is the fault of smoking..if you do then you need to take a drive to California where they have been a no smoking state for quite some time..and take note of the pollution still hanging in the air.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 12:48 PM

I don't think that air pollution is solely the fault of smoking cigarettes. It may contribute but I am speaking on a much smaller scale of "in my face" smoking.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 1:00 PM

Didn't we just have this discussion the other day. There are currently 3 blogs pertaining to smoking. CERTAINLY we can think of something else to talk about.

I don't smoke and am really getting tired of blog after blog of this

and Laurasft, you said

stolen25, I agree but I don't think the businesses "greed" came before her job. I think their bottom line did

Greed is the bottom line and always will be.

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 1:02 PM

jesuslovesevery1

I don't smoke and am really getting tired of blog after blog of this

_Yep me too

CERTAINLY we can think of something else to talk about

_ Did you know there isn't any mail today? :>)

In all seriousness I really wanted somebody to start a blog about the McDonald's Law Suit over the Hoax Strip Search of a teenage employee and how could anyone in their right mind go along with such stupidity.

This is the link: 20/20 or one of those magazine shows had a special on this over the weekend..it was unbelievable what they put this girl through.

http://spokesmanreview.com/ap/story.asp?...

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 1:20 PM

_ Did you know there isn't any mail today? :>)

Why I didn't until I read your post and went to check my mail :( hmmmmm..the banks are close too. Am I missing a holiday or something?

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 1:26 PM

Yep It is Columbus Day...Government Holiday

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 1:29 PM

The businesses that were lobbying for this ban are the greedy ones. They were too greedy to just ban smoking in their own businesses. They were afraid smokers would go somewhere else, and they would lose money. So they get the government to ban it for everybody. THAT is greed.

-- Posted by Richard on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 1:45 PM

jesuslovesevery1, I think you missed what I was trying to say. I realize that business did that to protect their money, they have to. The same way you protect yours.

diana, according to my calendar it is also Thanksgiving in Canada! lol

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 2:14 PM

The point is, the businesses knew in advance what that law was going to be, this particular business choose to use the exemption to allow people in their bars only over 21 to work, so people could still smoke, she needs to blame the owners, not the law. They put their greed above her need for a job.

-- Posted by stolen25 on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 12:24 PM

So their option was to not allow smoking at all which would most likely have ruined their business and put everyone out of a job. Please balance that equation.

-- Posted by devan on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 2:26 PM

devan, I really don't think everyone would have lost their jobs b/c no one would have been able to smoke. I think thatis taking it a little far. They were given two options....they chose one, it is an unpopular one but that does not make them wrong.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 2:29 PM

I seriously doubt anybody's businesses are being hurt. Most fast food places haven't allowed smoking in a long time and there was no outrage over that. Does not be able to smoke keep you from going to Wal-Mart, Krogers, the movies?

Businesses will probably prosper because people know that they will be able to enjoy their food (by actually being able to smell it instead of smelling the smoke), they will probably enjoy going to bars more because you can find your friends without having to need fog lights to see through all the smoke. and you can sit there with hacking and having your eyes water from 100 cigarettes burning. If you need to smoke while you drink, then drink at home. Once again, it's the law, I didn't pass it, but it makes it no less the law.

-- Posted by stolen25 on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 2:43 PM

I don't think people should have lost their jobs, but like Laura pointed out:

"If she needs someone to blame then blame the business, but I promise she will get quicker results if she just simply looks for another job."

It's that simple, find another job. People lose their jobs on a minute by minute basis, you just have to find another one.

-- Posted by stolen25 on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 2:45 PM

diana, according to my calendar it is also Thanksgiving in Canada! lol

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 2:14 PM

Happy thanksgiving lol....dangit..now I want some Turkey :P

-- Posted by stolen25 on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 2:48 PM

Actually Bars still allow smoking ( in Tennessee) as long as they do not allow under 21 inside:

But it will hurt bars like Stampedes who allowed 18-21 in with a underage stamp on their hands stating they couldn't drink but now these same 18-21 year olds will not be allowed because of the no smoking law.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 2:53 PM

I have never been to Stampede's or any "club" for that matter but I would be scared to death of someone smoking a cigarette and walking around dancing at the same time. If they accidentally burn me I may get kicked out. I wonder if there is alot of those incidents in bars or clubs? Or do they have designated smoking areas?

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 2:55 PM

No they don't have designated smoking areas that I know of it's a bar they either allow smoking or they don't.

I am sure people have been burnt dancing, but most of the people I have seen actually have enough sense to put the cigarette out before going onto the dance floor.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 2:58 PM

I have never been to Stampede's or any "club" for that matter but I would be scared to death of someone smoking a cigarette and walking around dancing at the same time. If they accidentally burn me I may get kicked out. I wonder if there is alot of those incidents in bars or clubs? Or do they have designated smoking areas?

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 2:59 PM

Nope from what I understand, some people have a drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other while dancing. I haven't been there myself, but have seen plenty of pictures from friends that go there.

-- Posted by stolen25 on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 2:59 PM

sorry for the double post, my computer went temporarily crazy

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 3:00 PM

I actually did get burned at the horse show one year. I got burned by the RUDEST crippled lady that ever existed. She was zooming past people in her hover-round and when she zoomed by me she burned me with her cigarette. I said "excuse me" and she turned around and said "yes, excuse you, next time you see someone coming in a wheelchair you should move out of the way". Sure lady, next time I see out of the back of my head and notice you I will move, k?

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 3:02 PM

Why should a smoker have the right to pollute the air that a non-smoker has no choice but to inhale?

What right does some one who drives a car have to pollute the air that non-drivers have no choice but to inhale?

Or what right does a company have to pollute the air for consumers who may or may not even use their products that have no choice but to inhale?

I am not by any means saying smoking is a good thing but you surely can not believe that air pollution is the fault of smoking..if you do then you need to take a drive to California where they have been a no smoking state for quite some time..and take note of the pollution still hanging in the air.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 12:48 PM

Have you ever eaten at a restaurant that had cars inside polluting the air you breathe while you eat? Yes, people should turn their cars off when eating at Sonic, but thats a totally different issue regarding consideration for others which some people lack theses days? Did TVA put some new coal fired power plants inside El Mexico? We are talking about a ban on smoking inside businesses. Smokers can still smoke outside on the patio or at the door. We all use the power from the coal fired plants generating electricity and we all drive cars that pollute. They are necessary evils in order to benefit from the utility they provide, smoking is not. I get absolutely no benefit if Joe Blow lights up next to me while I am trying to enjoy my meal.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 5:39 PM

I get absolutely no benefit if Joe Blow lights up next to me while I am trying to enjoy my meal.

Posted by nathan.evans on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 5:39 PM

Good point Nathan! For once we agree :)

-- Posted by stolen25 on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 5:44 PM

Nathan, this just goes to show we don't disagree on EVERYTHING... VERY articulate point!

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 6:09 PM

I am not going to argue smoking anymore with any of you..I still think it should have been each individual's business owners decision, not a law.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 7:00 PM

So tell me why the Tobacco outlet stores no longer allow smoking inside. They can sell it but not use it.

I think this has gotten way out of hand. Too many telling everyone they are wrong. Each person should have a right to decide for themselves... THE END.

Also why is there a magic number. "Yesterday I wasn't able to go to this place or that place because of smokers; today I am 21 so I can go in." The only difference in today and yesterday was the passing of hours and a change of date on the calendar. My lung function has not suddenly become reenforced by the changing of a few hours.

"I am not going to argue smoking anymore with any of you..I still think it should have been each individual's business owners decision, not a law.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 7:00 PM "

Dianatn I totally agree!

-- Posted by EastSideMom on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 7:44 PM

Each person should have a right to decide for themselves... THE END.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 7:00 PM

What you are failing to realize is that a majority of people agree that smoking inside a public establishment should be illegal because the air inside that establishment must be shared by everyone. No one person has the right to pollute the air we all breathe. Without government intervention most businesses had no real reason to change policy. Smokers had no defense on this issue because when smokers lose we all win. One side effect that I am curious about is whether or not chronic smokers will consume more alcohol now that the only place they can smoke at will be bars.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 10:06 PM

Nathan, how do you know that the majority of people think smoking should be illegal? We didn't get to vote on this. Also, your statement about "pollute the air we all have to breathe" shows that you're still missing the point about property rights.

Before this ban, if I went to a place that didn't allow smoking, I didn't complain or try to smoke anyway. That's because I respect other people's property and their right to choose what to allow or not allow on their property.

The same should be true for non smokers.

No one forced you to go inside any place that allowed smoking and breathe the air. That was your choice.

Would you come to my house and complain about the air quality? If not, then why would you complain about the air quality in someone's privately owned business. It's their property, not yours, and not the government's.

-- Posted by Richard on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 12:14 AM

These businesses do not have the right to do whatever they want simply because they own the property. They cannot sell beer with out a license, they cannot sell marijuana, they can't even sell a taco with out a food permit. These businesses do not even have the right to open their doors without the county and state permitting them to do so first. In exchange for their permit you agree to follow the law. The people of the state of Tennessee have decided that one of the laws should be a ban smoking in businesses. It is a public health issue and it just makes good common sense.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 8:13 AM

Hasn't everyone realized that Nathan knows EVERYTHING..there is no need for anyone else to reply to a blog. He is the knower of all things and it's his way or the highway.

you have to have a license to sell beer, yes...but you never had to have a license to sell tobacco, If i owned a business I wouldn't want the government telling me what the CUSTOMERS could do (such as smoking, not drugs NATHAN) but it's the law and we all have to go with it and stop griping!!!

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 10:24 AM

Actually ignoramus you do need a license to sell tobacco in Tennessee.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 11:01 AM

And smoking is a drug also. Wrong on both counts. I don't think the problem is how smart I am, it is how dumb you are.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 11:03 AM

No one forced you to go inside any place that allowed smoking and breathe the air. That was your choice.

Posted by Richard on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 12:14 AM

Nobody forced smokers to go to a restaurant either... Restaurants serve FOOD and DRINKS... the right to smoke does not supercede the right to eat and drink in a healthy environment. Let's let the businesses decide what to do with everything. Heck, just get rid of the codes inspectors so the building they serve you doesn't fall apart. Let's get rood of the Health inspectors, because we like cockroaches in the restaurant and food stored at improper temperatures... We don't want the government involved with business owner's decisions, yet if it weren't for the government inspections/regulations, there would be no accountability and disease would be rampant.

I am done with this issue... Let the voters vote, I am nearly certain the results would favor the ban.

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 12:02 PM

STATE AND LOCAL LICENSING LAWS FOR BUSINESSES IN TENNESSEE....

(b) State and Local Licensing. Nearly any business, operated anywhere in the United States, will have to have at least one government license of some kind. In most cases, this will be a local license, issued by your city or county. Before you open your business, contact your local city or county hall and find out if your particular business needs one or more local licenses. Most kinds of local business licenses are granted upon payment of a fee, with no further requirements, except possibly for annual or other periodic renewal fees.

However, if you are engaging in any kind of food business, you will usually need to also obtain a health department permit and show that you are in compliance with health department food-handling requirements. In addition, be sure to check with an attorney or local government zoning or planning department officials to determine if your business will be in compliance with all local zoning and planning restrictions. If you own or rent any type of facility, you will generally need fire department permits, showing that you meet fire safety codes and any construction or improvements to an existing structure will usually require a building permit. If you intend to simply operate your business from your home, you may be in violation of local zoning requirements, but this is less likely to be a concern if you don't have clients, customers, suppliers, or employees coming to your house on business, on a regular basis. If you are engaging in the selling of alcohol on your premise you will also be required to apply for and be approved,by the city or county in order to sell, distribute or purchase alcohol for the intent to sell.

Also, as noted above, local governments in Tennessee are allowed to impose business and occupations taxes at maximum rates specified by state law, on a wide range of businesses and occupations, under the Business Tax Act.

State governments have also traditionally required special licenses for many kinds of professionals, such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, and accountants. To further protect consumers, Tennessee has expanded the list of occupations that must be licensed by the state to include many other occupations. Most state licenses not only require payment of fees, but are only issued for a given profession or occupation upon showing that you have completed certain educational or experience requirements, or passed certain tests, or some combination of the foregoing.

The state of Tennessee imposes a $200 annual professional privilege tax, due by June 1 each year, on most major types of professional license holders, including physicians, dentists and other medical practitioners, accountants, lawyers, engineers, architects, and various other licensed professionals ranging from lobbyists to stockbrokers.

For information on state licensing and business registration requirements in Tennessee, see the contact information for the offices of the Division of Regulatory Boards, Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance, listed in Section VI(a)

NOWHERE DOES IT SAY YOU NEED A TOBACCO LICENSE...AND I AM THE DUMB IGNORAMUS??? How old are you? 3? 5? You think your name calling doesn't make you look childish?

and SMOKING isn't a drug...TOBACCO is...

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 1:00 PM

Hasn't everyone realized that Nathan knows EVERYTHING..there is no need for anyone else to reply to a blog. He is the knower of all things and it's his way or the highway.

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 10:24 AM

I said nothing to you on here that would give you cause to attack me like that. You wanted to fight with me for some reason dc_0725. You think you are gonna come on here and say things about me and I am not gonna respond? You really are dumb! Businesses that sell tobacco must register with the TN Dept. of Agriculture.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 1:20 PM

What you are failing to realize is that a majority of people agree that smoking inside a public establishment should be illegal because the air inside that establishment must be shared by everyone. No one person has the right to pollute the air we all breathe. Without government intervention most businesses had no real reason to change policy. Smokers had no defense on this issue because when smokers lose we all win. One side effect that I am curious about is whether or not chronic smokers will consume more alcohol now that the only place they can smoke at will be bars.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Mon, Oct 8, 2007, at 10:06 PM

Thank you Nathan. that is exactly what we have ALL been trying to say just in different words.

-- Posted by shelbyvegas on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 4:22 PM

and SMOKING isn't a drug...TOBACCO is...

-- Posted by dc_0725 on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 1:00 PM

Yes dc_0725, I did misspeak when I said smoking instead of tobacco. Thank you for pointing out what I obviously meant.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 4:39 PM

Businesses that sell tobacco must register with the TN Dept. of Agriculture.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 1:20 PM

Is that the same as having to have a license? I don't think it is, but correct me if I am wrong ( I am in no way being hateful) I just don't know if I am right or not.

-- Posted by Vindicated on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 4:46 PM

http://tn.gov/revenue/forms/tobacco/tob5...

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 4:51 PM

Dept. Of Agriculture or Revenue? Did you mis-speak on that too?

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 4:55 PM

Either way I was right.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 4:56 PM

WRONG.

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 4:57 PM

WRONG.

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 4:57 PM

No I was not. You see nascarfanatic, businesses are inspected by the Dept. of Agriculture because they ensure that businesses do not sale tobacco to minors. The Dept. of Revenue tracks the sale and the collection of taxes on the tobacco. So I am right on both points.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Tue, Oct 9, 2007, at 5:03 PM

nascarfanatic, health inspectors are needed because the customer has no way of knowing if the food is safe or not. Code inspectors are needed because the customer has no way of knowing if the building is safe or not. If a business had a sign on the door that they allowed smoking, you KNOW before you walk through the door. There is a difference.

-- Posted by Richard on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 12:27 AM

I smoke, drink, and drive a gas guzzling SUV,(saw where someone complained about that the other day) and don't need anyone to tell me Im wrong! I also work everyday to support my lifestyle. The next time me and my husband decide to go out to diner we will not be dropping $100.00 at any restaurant we cant smoke in! So what about the common cold, tuberculosis, flu, staff infection just to name a few? These are all highly contagious and you can contract them standing in line for a hour waiting to be seated or at the grocery store! I dont like the thought of being exposed to lots of things but when I go out in public I am well aware that I am exposing myself to who knows what! We will all have to have a health card along with our drivers license next Im guessing...

-- Posted by Disgusted on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 10:20 AM

One side effect that I am curious about is whether or not chronic smokers will consume more alcohol now that the only place they can smoke at will be bars.

I dont think so! I do most of my smoking and have a few drinks on my back porch! As for bars, most adults (should) know when they have had enough, smoker or not! No, to answer your what Im sure is the next question. I never drink and drive!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 10:36 AM

The next time me and my husband decide to go out to diner we will not be dropping $100.00 at any restaurant we cant smoke in!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 10:20 AM

Good luck finding a restaurant that allows smoking in this state.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 2:01 PM

There is one but you have to be a member and of course we are members! Does'nt matter anyway, I have'nt found a resturant around that has my husbands steak and shrimp beat! Guess I'll be staying home for diner more often. I have always obeyed the law and will continue to, but I dont have to like it!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 3:16 PM

Guess I'll be staying home for diner more often.

Posted by Disgusted on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 3:16 PM

SOUNDS GOOD TO ME..THAT IS WHERE YOU NEED TO STAY.

-- Posted by Vindicated on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 4:20 PM

There is one but you have to be a member and of course we are members! Does'nt matter anyway, I have'nt found a resturant around that has my husbands steak and shrimp beat! Guess I'll be staying home for diner more often. I have always obeyed the law and will continue to, but I dont have to like it!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 3:16 PM

Next time learn where the ' goes ... It's after the n' not before it...

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 6:41 PM

Disgusted,

Lastly.....It would help if you obeyed the laws of grammar... and had dinner (with two N's) at home... Keep your "disgusting" habits quarantined for the sake of all those who love their lungs. And teach your kids, THAT is how to be mature and avoid being ignorant.

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Wed, Oct 10, 2007, at 7:15 PM

OMG.....Shot me and burn my computer! Some of you need to get a life, job, or something! Stop jumping from one blog to another because THATS ignorant and makes no sense... Tell ya what I think Im done with the TGs blogs. Some people dont know how to behave and respect others thoughts and opinions!

Oh and by the way I know YA should be YOU! ;)

-- Posted by Disgusted on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 9:56 AM

Disgusted, don't let one poster run you off. That is what their intent is. I find it more effective to make them look dumb.

-- Posted by LauraSFT on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 9:59 AM

Don't let one flamer with a chip on their shoulder get the best of you. We all see nascarfanatic for what he is and his comments designed to make you look bad only make him look bad.

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 11:13 AM

Disgusted, don't let one poster run you off. That is what their intent is. I find it more effective to make them look dumb.

You do have a point!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 11:16 AM

Oh no....I did it again!!!I meant to say(Shoot)not(Shot)gotta quit using spell check its making me forget how to spell by myself!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 2:04 PM

Oh no....I did it again!!!I meant to say(Shoot)not(Shot)gotta quit using spell check its making me forget how to spell by myself!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 2:04 PM

JMO but I find that you making these kind of comments are just as "childish" as the ones that tell you that your grammer is wrong, wouldn't you agree?

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 4:00 PM

JMO but I find that you making these kind of comments are just as "childish" as the ones that tell you that your grammer is wrong, wouldn't you agree?

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 4:00 PM

You know what, you are right about that! I do have to agree...

-- Posted by Disgusted on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 4:13 PM

Flamer huh? Childish name calling makes YOU look bad Nathan, not my need to read posts from "decent" people, which are the only blogs you love, right?

What is the difference between my wishing to read organized, accurately spelled comments, as your wishes to engage with debate with only "decent" people?

-- Posted by nascarfanatic on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 4:56 PM

OMG Spell Check is back!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 7:28 PM

OMG Spell Check is back!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 7:28 PM

I thought we agreed on this blog that this was just as childish. You just keep feeding the fire leading me to believe that you enjoy taunting and arguing as much as the next person

JMHO

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 7:38 PM

Your right! We did agree, sorry!

-- Posted by Disgusted on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 7:57 PM

I paid for that one by the way! Spilled my drink (tea) on my laptop and burnt my finger trying to get it out of my lap! No kidding Im serious...

-- Posted by Disgusted on Thu, Oct 11, 2007, at 8:10 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Brian Mosely is a staff writer for the Times-Gazette.
Hot topics
About that Labor Day story...
(89 ~ 6:49 PM, Aug 29)

About "Welcome to Shelbyville"
(100 ~ 9:11 AM, Jun 30)

Anonymous tips ...and why many of them are anonymous
(4 ~ 10:14 AM, Apr 9)

Suspended for saying "no" to drugs
(15 ~ 10:06 AM, Apr 9)

The rumor mill
(35 ~ 8:36 AM, Nov 8)