1. Home
  2. Cities & Towns
  3. Phoenix
photo of Judy Hedding

Judy's Phoenix Blog

By Judy Hedding, About.com Guide to Phoenix since 2000

Arizona Proposition 206: Arizona Non-Smoker Protection

Saturday September 30, 2006
UPDATE, November 8, 2006. The voters said no.

In November 2006 voters in Arizona will address Proposition 206, sponsored by sponsored by Keep Arizona Free. Proposition 206 would prohibit smoking in all public places and places of employment, except bars, including parts of restaurants, hotels and other establishments that sell alcoholic beverages and are physically separated with a separate ventilation system, retail tobacco stores, veterans and fraternal clubs when they are not open to the public, hotel rooms designated as smoking rooms, and outdoor patios. Click on "Read more" to see a synopsis of the pros and cons and find more information about this ballot measure.

Poll: Will you vote in favor of Proposition 206?

1) Yes, this plan for reducing the hazards of second-hand smoke is reasonable.
2) No, this plan doesn't resolve the problems associated with second-hand smoke in public places.

View Poll Results

Advocates of Proposition 206 say that the Arizona Non-Smoker Protection Act protects non-smokers while preserving private property rights. This initiative would prohibit smoking in enclosed public spaces and places of employment with a few sensible exceptions such as tobacco shops and bars. This law that takes into account those who do not want to be impacted by secondhand smoke, as well as the businesses that rely on a smoking clientele to stay open.

Opponents to Proposition 206 say that it won't protect nonsmokers or our health, but rather protects the profits of the tobacco companies. Ventilation technologies do not protect patrons against the harmful effects of breathing secondhand smoke. This Proposition offers no method of funding or provision for enforcement, allowing for noncompliance without penalty.

Read the exact language of Proposition 206, as well as officially posted arguments for and against.

Comments

October 5, 2006 at 1:23 am
(1) Jeff Hodge says:

I have been in bars that have smoke eradicaters in them and they do NOT work.My clothing still smells like smoke and everyone is still breathing that disgusting smokey air.If people want to smoke,let them go outside to do it.I’d be o.k. with that.Or if there is an entirely seperate room for smokers to go into,that would be great!I’m afraid that that those in favor of proposition 206 do not realize what the cost will be for business owners to make it possible for smokers to continue to smoke in restaurants and bars.
Thanks you.

October 11, 2006 at 1:01 pm
(2) Tim says:

I think a lot of people fail to understand that prop 206 is sponsered by the tobacco company and that it is just a law trying to allow people to continue smoking in bars and restaurants. The only way to get a smoke free Arizona is to vote no on 206 and yes on 201.

October 31, 2006 at 3:44 pm
(3) Timothy says:

The wording of this question is stupid. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. Yes - it’s a reasonable plan, and No - it does not resolve 2nd hand smoke problems. If you’re going to write a poll, learn how to do it for crying out loud.

October 31, 2006 at 3:47 pm
(4) phoenix says:

The choices are yes, the plan reduces smoke, or no, it doesn’t.

Pretty straightforward to me. But then I wrote it….

November 4, 2006 at 3:09 pm
(5) queencreek says:

I will vote yes on 206 because what are the smoking people suppose to do leave their drink to go outside and smoke so their drink can get drugged or what have you…. there are more non smoking places in arizona then smoking so if you don’t like it go to them…..

November 6, 2006 at 9:08 am
(6) pam says:

If you don’t want to go into situations where there is smoking then don’t go, but don’t make other people pay for that. Every time you leave your house, you go into pollution that is much more toxic than cigarette smoke. Are you going to stop all of the cars and factories? Of course not.

November 7, 2006 at 2:30 am
(7) Chris Forenz says:

This is a case where I’ll vote to protect the rights of private business. I’m a non smoker and don’t particularly like being in a smokey bar. But with proper restrictions, I believe it should be the choice of the business owner to allow smoking or not, and the patrons choice to stay there or not. Prop 206 is a reasonable compromise between non-smoker safety and private business rights. Laws and restrictions are made to protect us from things we can’t control. Such has pollution regulations on factories. We can’t stop going outside and breathing the free air in that case. But, we can choose not to enter a smoking bar.

November 7, 2006 at 6:50 pm
(8) keith J says:

vote yes — bars make money from the booze not cigarrettes. ban it all together. its not our fault you tried to be cool at 13 got hooked on smokes cant stop and will get cancer very soon.. your not cool so go smoke in your car..

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

Explore Phoenix

More from About.com

  1. Home
  2. Cities & Towns
  3. Phoenix

©2008 About.com, a part of The New York Times Company.

All rights reserved.