New M&T Bank Stadium smoking policy

[Purpleguy]

For all intents and purposes, the stadium, when occupied by the Ravens, is a private property venue. Just as if you are to rent an apartment -- only in this case, they rent the space (for lack of a better term) from the state of Maryland.

Just you or I can make any rule in our home, they have that same right.

No they don't have the right to make their own rules. Read the policy more carefully.

The Baltimore Ravens have made changes to the designated smoking areas at M&T Bank Stadium in compliance with the newest smoking ordinance in the City of Baltimore.

I agree with you though. They should get to make their own rules as should every private business. If a bar or restaurant wants to ban smoking I can choose to eat elsewhere or deal with it. If they want to allow smoking then you can eat somewhere else or deal with it. It's called voting with your wallet. The fact is that the state hasn't given businesses a choice. They have chosen to strip liberties away from individuals and business owners to accomodate the will of others.

[Purpleguy]

It's not about liberties, its about manners.

So should we ban everything that annoys certain people? Where do we stop? The next step is coming and that is the government telling us what we can eat.

[Galen Sevinne]

So should we ban everything that annoys certain people? Where do we stop? The next step is coming and that is the government telling us what we can eat.

We don't have to ban anything that is annoying if people have the common courtesy to not impose their annoyances on others.

You seem to be trying to make the case that you should be able to sit next to me and impose your carcinogen-laced breath on me. The state is making the case that you need to take it to a place where those who don't want to be exposed to your breath have equal opportunity to avoid it. Which sounds more reasonable?

I am not drawn to the conclusion that the government is going to try to control my food intake because they have have enforced stricter smoking laws. That sounds like a Brian Wilson fallacious argument to me.

[HoustonRaven]

Started a thread on the Politics page since it seems this is headed to be a political debate .....

[purplepoe]

We don't have to ban anything that is annoying if people have the common courtesy to not impose their annoyances on others.

You seem to be trying to make the case that you should be able to sit next to me and impose your carcinogen-laced breath on me. The state is making the case that you need to take it to a place where those who don't want to be exposed to your breath have equal opportunity to avoid it. Which sounds more reasonable?

I am not drawn to the conclusion that the government is going to try to control my food intake because they have have enforced stricter smoking laws. That sounds like a Brian Wilson fallacious argument to me.

http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore...4/daily29.html

PP

[HoustonRaven]

http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore...4/daily29.html

PP

oops!

[Purpleguy]

PP beat me to it.

[purplepoe]

Sometimes it's good to know what you are talking about before engaging in a debate. Thank goodness the government is saying kids from being obese. Heaven forbid a parent feeds the child with something besides McDonalds.

I'm not a smoker and I was 100% against the law.

If the city would worry about criminals and State's Attorney's office that is incompetent instead of what kind of food we eat, it might have a chance to survive.

But we all know there's no fun in that.

PP

[Purpleguy]

I'm just arguing because some people are never happy even after their side won. Smokers are unwelcome in pretty much every public place in the state of Maryland. Convicted child molesters have more rights in this state than smokers. The stadium is going to have a few sections to appease their smoking fans, which is at least 20% of us if you go by the national average, and some people still aren't happy. We should be smoking under the light rail tracks. I have never in my life seen a perfectly legal activity chastised like smoking is, and I will be perfectly honest, it scares me a bit. Where does government intervention stop?

I'm not happy that I smoke, and I'd really like to quit, and I have to within the next couple months because I am donating a kidney. It's just a very hard thing to do when you have been smoking for more than 20 years. People who treat smokers like we are the dregs of society do nothing but make me want to continue the habit because I hate giving in to those that want to control me.

[Mr.Boh]

Someone earlier stated that its about manners, not rights. As an ex-smoker, I see and smell cigs now and cant believe how inconsiderate I was when I smoked. The reason the government feels they have the right to enforcing smoking bans has to do with worker protection. We all know thats not at the heart of smoking bans, but that is the legal reason.

[RavenDavey]

My worth

The smell of cigarettes outside do not bother me at all, just don't do it next to me in my seat.

The thing that pisses me off about smokers is:

They think the world is an ASHTRAY by flicking their BUTTS out the window, or DUMPING their car's ashtray onto the curb at a red light.

If you respect the earth and not treat it like an ashtray....smoke away!!

[Galen Sevinne]

http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore...4/daily29.html

PP

I am aware of this and I really don't believe what kind of fat your fries are fried in really is about the government making food choices for you. While it is wholly unnecessary, it is also a slippery slope libertarian argument that sounds nice on the surface but really doesn't lead to the government deciding what is on the menu when I go to a restaurant. Let me know when I can no longer eat my peanut butter captain crunch then I will be paranoid.