DISQUS

Are you concerned with two issues which see with this ban?

1. People demanding that the government do what they could do for themselves, and 2. If "we the people" couldn't do it ourselves, should it have been legislated on everyone?

1. As Jeremy states, non-smokers are the majority today. Why did we need the government to make a law when non-smokers could have just stopped visiting smoking establishments?

This is not a "if you don't like then just don't go" rant. This is about "we have the power!"

Have you not noticed that more establishment have gone non-smoking each year? If we would only say "I will not be back until you are non-smoking", these bars and other facilities would switch in a heartbeat. There are too many non-smokers. And smokers would be relegated to a few smoking permitted places. Would that be so bad? It would accomplish your goal of visiting Sherlocks without the smoke and maitain the freedom, greatness, and power of choice. Vote with your dollar.

Here's the "but", people don't the nerve to give up their Sherlocks or other hang out. And everyone knows it. The point of view seems to be "I don't want to actually give anything up for my cause. The government will do it." And I know everyone knows it, because everyone says to me, "We needed a law because that would never happen. People can't do that kind of thing together." We are our own worst enemy.

2. If we could not come together on this, if we couldn't act together on this, if a handful of legislators had to enact this, then I wonder if people really wanted this? Or did we just not have enough people who cared? That could certainly be asked of any legislation. But, it a question we must each ask ourselves, every time, with every new law.

For me, we could have settled it ourselves. If we didn't care enough to work toward out cause, then we don't deserve it. There was no legislation that would have prevented our purchases, or lack of, from settling this.

Go Bojosmom! Why is it so hard to see the obvious?

It's obvious that teens will be teens. It's obvious that "loitering" will occur at an outdoor concert. It's obvious that teenage angst occurs in all generations.

It is also obvious that teens will be better behaved teens with their parents around. It is also obvious that loitering need not be rude, obstructing, or a hindrance to those who are trying to get by on a side walk or through way. It is also obvious that teenage angst doesn't need to ruin it for everyone.

Why isn't anyone angry at the teens who caused this problem? Why isn't anyone "loitering" on the grassy area designed for people to gather and enjoy the concert? Why isn't 2 adults loitering? Because 2 teens isn't either. But 25 teens obstructing the walk way and concession stand is.

I am curious... while I certainly value the theory, I have always been confused as the impact on litigation. Government regulation and case history shows that companies often lose court battles because "there was no policy prohibiting such behavior."

How do you deal with that in the no-policy method?

I am a non-smoker and I do not visit Sherlocks or Rack 'N Roll. You may ask, "Why?" I do not visit them because they are smoking facilities. It is that simple.

I believe we need not wait on the state of Pennsylvania to do what we can do ourselves. These facilities only continue to allow smoking on the premises because smokers and non-smokers alike continue to spend their money at their cash registers.

How many local bands will continue to play at Sherlocks if no one in sitting in the audience?

The world is a different place than it was 20 years ago. Smokers no longer outnumber the non-smokers and businesses can be persuaded to act by the lack of revenue. Keep your money where non-smokers are catered to.

We can decide that non-smoking is more important than a local band, a good meal, or an wine. Together, one dollar at a time, we can decide to change smoking to non-smoking in Pennsylvania.