How Would You Vote?

[Kaybee]

Originally Posted by Shelby07

This is a tough question. I didn't vote because I don't know how I'd vote. As much as I dislike smoking bans, the truth of the matter is that I can live with them as long as I can smoke in my own house or backyard, and that isn't going to stop. There are other issues that would take precedent over a smoking ban when it comes to who will represent me in government.

The only way to defeat a smoking ban is to let it go into effect and then have a group of affected people (restaurant and bar owners) ignore the law, get fined and fight the penalties in court to try to get it overturned.

I agree with this one. I think this one is a hard one. I look at so many things on how I vote. I also don't let any tell me how to vote. I always do my research. If the only down fall is that the person is against smoking I guess I will have to over look it.

As for if the ban go's into effect and you do have a group of owners that decide to go against it I think that anyone that takes place in it needs to give the owners some money to help with the fines. Because if the courts don't over turn it it could be expensive and the bar/restaurant could end up going out of business.

but that is my $0.02 and it is a good question Squid sorry I just can't vote in this one.

Kay

[Architeuthis]

Bumpity Bump

[Pumpkinsdad]

Originally Posted by BigBuddha76

I agree wholeheartedly with you. I have seen the blatant disregard to property rights...dont even get me started on eminent domain.

I second that. Ohio actually is standing up for the public on eminent domain, however there is smoking ban voted by the people. One issue I have with that is certain cigar bars are to be smoke free because they are public places. Pretty sad that the sign says "CIGAR BAR" and the people feel it should still be smoke free.

[Gatormoye]

As a cigar retailer I would for sure vote against someone against cigars. I find though people who are against my rights to smoke cigars and create a smoking ban will not protect me on the other matters that matter to me. I believe this is a personal rights issue, and mostly people on the left seem to want to take my rights away.

[brow78]

I do love to vote as much as anyone and I don't agree with the way cigars may get horns.Though I also dont believe you can simply vote on a official for one view.

3. Religious/Political discussions are NOT allowed


I think this needs to be revised a bit as well to continue this talk I see it getting good.

[BioSore]

I clicked the wrong vote... I wouldn't vote against a candidate simply because they are anti-cigar/smoking. Like the others, I am not a one-issue voter. I think that there are much more important things to worry about when deciding on who is going to be (y)our representative. I think that in most elections, unless you go strictly by-the-party-line, often times both (major) candidates will have opinions that may lean towards your own.

[Marlboro Cigars-cl]

This poll is pretty one-sided.

[AragornElessar86-cl]

I agree with Shelby's first statement, though, as others have said, with all things being equal, i'd vote against an anti-smoking candidate.

[Eespidie]

i undertsand that cigar smoking isnt the only issue but in my life and im sure even more so in the retailers life its a MAJOR issue, and if in my mind a candidate was even mildly close, id easily vote against the anti-cigar

[oldfart54]

This is an opinion poll. everyone knows about opinions, everyone has one, or knows one. or they're all holding office.

[CubanoLou]

I just wouldn't place anyone in position that would try and change our ways. I think what we do and how we do it is our on decision.

[havanitascigars-cl]

As I become older and see greater restrictions placed on us by the government I become more picky about who I vote for. In general, a candidate who supports smoking bans also supports other restrictions on personal liberty. The Constitution was written to protect us from these types of laws. As a society, we keep in the pursuit of life and happiness [wealth] we forget about liberty.

The basic premise of the Constitution was to ensure the rights of a minority are not trampled by the majority. Odd thing to think since democracy involves voting with the most popular person winning, but our elected officials are supposed to stand up individual rights. That which does not harm the masses should not be restricted. I am not just talking about smoking either. The Framers were concerned that only acts which infringe on the rights of other citizens in a harmful way should be passed. Laws should not be written to restrict people from irritating others.

And that is what smoking really is... an irritation. We, as a society, do not like to make decisions. We like people to tell us what to do and what is right and wrong. We also believe our values should be everyone elses. If someone does not like the fact a restaurant allows smoking, then do not eat at that restaurant. Instead, we legislate that the restaurant cannot allow smoking so that we can eat there. Where is the right of the owner protected? If he wishes to make a business decision that kills his business, then so be it. That is his right. The list of freedoms is incredible and most of them are merely irritations.

If you do not like a bar that allows smoking, then go somewhere else. An enterprising individual will see the demand and create a place for you.

You do not like what is on TV, then change the channel.
You do not like nude pictures in magazines, then do not buy them.
You do not like rap music, then do not listen to it.
Etc, etc, etc.

We should exercise our right to choose before we lose our ability to.

[doblemaduro]

Getrid of the S.O.B.'s.

[Architeuthis]

Originally Posted by havanitascigars

As I become older and see greater restrictions placed on us by the government I become more picky about who I vote for. In general, a candidate who supports smoking bans also supports other restrictions on personal liberty. The Constitution was written to protect us from these types of laws. As a society, we keep in the pursuit of life and happiness [wealth] we forget about liberty.

The basic premise of the Constitution was to ensure the rights of a minority are not trampled by the majority. Odd thing to think since democracy involves voting with the most popular person winning, but our elected officials are supposed to stand up individual rights. That which does not harm the masses should not be restricted. I am not just talking about smoking either. The Framers were concerned that only acts which infringe on the rights of other citizens in a harmful way should be passed. Laws should not be written to restrict people from irritating others.

And that is what smoking really is... an irritation. We, as a society, do not like to make decisions. We like people to tell us what to do and what is right and wrong. We also believe our values should be everyone elses. If someone does not like the fact a restaurant allows smoking, then do not eat at that restaurant. Instead, we legislate that the restaurant cannot allow smoking so that we can eat there. Where is the right of the owner protected? If he wishes to make a business decision that kills his business, then so be it. That is his right. The list of freedoms is incredible and most of them are merely irritations.

If you do not like a bar that allows smoking, then go somewhere else. An enterprising individual will see the demand and create a place for you.

You do not like what is on TV, then change the channel.
You do not like nude pictures in magazines, then do not buy them.
You do not like rap music, then do not listen to it.
Etc, etc, etc.

We should exercise our right to choose before we lose our ability to.

Very well stated!

[happy1]

I agree with Havanitascigars-most smoke nazi's are also the same that restrict personal freedoms for "the greater good" ie wich is socialism plain and simple.They try and ban smoking,guns,God,so in a word all my officials that believe in heavy cigar taxes also believe in liberalism and I do vote against them