Comments on: “Pipe Dream” Turns Into Financial Nightmare For Refugees

By: Razzbar

Razzbar — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:55:59 +0000

Hawaii had a rational approach to smoking in public establishments. It was up to the proprietor of the business to decide whether smoking would or would not be allowed inside. If smoking was allowed, there had to be a sign on the door warning people that smoking was allowed inside.

Pretty simple. Let the business owner decide whether to allow it or not, then let the public decide whether to go inside or not. All that was required was to enable consenting adults to make an informed decision for themselves.

By: Rick

Rick — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:50:16 +0000

Paul…sounds like a very good idea… but I still say the govt still needs to stay out of peoples day to day lives

By: Grumpy ole guy

Grumpy ole guy — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:35:40 +0000

I hope you know that by restraining myself from attempts at blowing this off with cheap-shot remarks, I am abridging my own self-expressive rights.
Does the ordinance NOT define WHAT is being smoked?
Since the US Supreme Court has ruled that otherwise controlled substances may be used during native-American religious ceremonies, I would have thought that the Boise City Fathers and Mothers would have considered that there are, in fact, social (including religious) reasons for consumption of a substance which itself is NOT controlled may be employed (or, enjoyed). Did the ban include the Cigar stores where smoking takes place? I know that, that was discussed, but don’t recall the outcome.
I applaud the intent of the City measure IF the intent is to preserve and protect by-standers. However, it does appear that it may require re-visiting for consideration of additional venues and circumstances. It also appears a tad more than meddlesome to fit into such a libertarian climate as is Idaho’s.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:24:23 +0000

Hey Rick, there was an appeal that went to the US Supreme Court in the late 80’s. A lady contracted lung cancer (she was a non-smoker) and asked to be granted workman’s compensation because of all the second hand smoke where she worked. Her claim was denied at the state level courts but she appealed to the Supreme Court and her appeal was granted. Well the result was it hit the fan with all the insurance companies and smoking in the workplace came to an end virtually overnight. Now it has become an issue in public places and the potential liability is hanging out there for owners and operators.

Take the hooka bar private and the problem is solved. Make the membership a nominal cost but the place is members only.

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:09:18 +0000

the got. should be govt. me no typey too goodly

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:29:36 +0000

Doesn’t the law ban all tobacco? I don’t think the got. should be allowed to put restrictions on prvt. buisness owners. If a person doesn’t like to smell the smoke don’t go or work in that establishment. I know this is retorical but do non smokers have the right to dictate to smokers where they can smoke?

By: JamesBond

JamesBond — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:49:32 +0000

I thank the good Lord that I chew Copenhagen. They haven’t banned that!

By: Bus Rider

Bus Rider — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:48:54 +0000

Thanks for reporting on this, Guardian. This is an important issue highlighting effects of a hasty decision. I’m a smoker, and I approve of this ordinance — just not the way the city implemented it. The city should have gone through a more formal process (even to the extent of putting it on a ballot) to include more citizens in the decision. No doubt in my mind the ordinance would have still passed, but A) it would have quashed the griping coming from some bar owners who say the city is unfairly dictating the conditions of their enterprise, and B) glitches like the hookah bars would have been addressed and ironed out before implementation.

By: bikeboy

bikeboy — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:02:31 +0000

I don’t much care for the smell of smoke, and avoid places where I expect I’ll have to deal with it.

But these hooka establishments are private property! In my opinion, the city has absolutely no authority to ban smoking in hooka bars – or bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, etc., for that matter. The owner of the establishment can decide what goes, and which clientele he wants to cater to. I can choose which places will get my dollars… and I can tell the owner why I do and/or don’t patronize his establishment.

If Nanny Dave and his Party toadies can ban smoking in a private business… why can’t they also ban smoking in your apartment or house? (After all, what is bad for the downtrodden employees who must suffer second-hand smoke is also bad for minor children. Can’t Big Brother do something?!?)

By: dh

dh — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:00:51 +0000

Hmmm, Official and selective application of the Boise Rulers’ new “You VILL be healthy” law would seem to smack of favoritism based on racial profiling.

Whatever happened to “If you don’t like the heat, get out of the kitchen?”

Except during Ramadan, I know of no prohibitions against smoking, either hookahs or cratered ruins, in South West Asia.