smoking ban

[motoboy]

Looks like Jenny will pass this......thoughts?

I don't like the govt telling me what to do but in this case,
it will be nice to not smell like an ash tray after a night out. :dunno:

:smilepopcorn:

mb.

[Headlight]

First no smoking in bars, pretty soon no talking or drinking.

[snakesht]

Looks similar to the ban Ohio passed last year. I was a smoker at the time, but have since quit. It never really bothered me much either way. I don't think it hurt places as much as they made it sound like it would. Then again, we don't have casinos here (yet). I haven't researched it, but I don't recall running across any reports of business closings that could be attributed to the smoking ban. It affects all businesses the same.

[fasterbusa]

It will be great when they finally ban smoking in those places.

[jgreen]

Looks similar to the ban Ohio passed last year. I was a smoker at the time, but have since quit. It never really bothered me much either way. I don't think it hurt places as much as they made it sound like it would. Then again, we don't have casinos here (yet). I haven't researched it, but I don't recall running across any reports of business closings that could be attributed to the smoking ban. It affects all businesses the same.

Well Put. I also agree with Motoboy. I don't like being told what i can and cannot do, but cigatette smoke physically bothers me, and the fresh air will do everyone good. Great time for people to quit.

[hellsnat]

do we really want the government to have that much control?

my vote is hell no!!!

let the free market decide.

[snakesht]

do we really want the government to have that much control?

my vote is hell no!!!

let the free market decide.
Normally I'd say no to that, but remember that everyone in this country has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which cannot be denied without due process of law. And someone smoking around me can have a direct impact on my life.

This brings up a very sensitive argument, since people drinking can have an effect as well, if they choose to drive or engage in other activities. However, drinking and driving is against the law. Do you feel the government overstepped its boundaries with that law? If someone is sitting next to me drinking a beer, the only threat they might pose is being an annoyance (depending on how many they've had).

There is always the argument that if you don't want to be around smoke, don't go to places where smoking is allowed. But if it is up to the company to decide, they will normally side with the smokers since those who are at the risk of losing the right to do something will probably speak up the most. So businesses would be pressured into allowing smoking as a result of the uproar they would face for banning it. I'll admit there are some flaws and exceptions to this argument as well, but I think that if you look back to the first paragraph of my post, you'll see why I feel it makes sense.

[DemonRR]

i quit smokin 7 months ago. the new "no smoking" bill (imo) is a great idea. no more smelling smoke, stinkin like them, and the other things associated with smoking. but alas i very much dislike the power goverments try to impose on our so called "freedom".

[xboxdynasty]

Boo in my opinion. And yes I smoke. I could care less about restaurants. No one has been able to smoke in McDonald's for a long time. But bars come on! Smoking and beer just go together. If you're that worried about your health you shouldn't be drinking.

All imho.

[Duner]

I hate it when chicks hide the fact that they smoke till after ya date them for a month,
Or an onernighter when they light up after sex.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuck......:puke2:

[marc_padin]

Boo in my opinion. And yes I smoke. I could care less about restaurants. No one has been able to smoke in McDonald's for a long time. But bars come on! Smoking and beer just go together. If you're that worried about your health you shouldn't be drinking.

All imho.

In most places you can go to a patio and smoke! If you decide you want to smoke and have a beer, that is cool, but maybe the people around you don't want to smoke but do want to have the beer. If this smoking ban works in every other state, I don't see why the bar owners are afraid to loose business. It’s not like the smokers can find a place that would let them smoke inside.

[hellsnat]

Normally I'd say no to that, but remember that everyone in this country has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which cannot be denied without due process of law. And someone smoking around me can have a direct impact on my life.

This brings up a very sensitive argument, since people drinking can have an effect as well, if they choose to drive or engage in other activities. However, drinking and driving is against the law. Do you feel the government overstepped its boundaries with that law? If someone is sitting next to me drinking a beer, the only threat they might pose is being an annoyance (depending on how many they've had).

There is always the argument that if you don't want to be around smoke, don't go to places where smoking is allowed. But if it is up to the company to decide, they will normally side with the smokers since those who are at the risk of losing the right to do something will probably speak up the most. So businesses would be pressured into allowing smoking as a result of the uproar they would face for banning it. I'll admit there are some flaws and exceptions to this argument as well, but I think that if you look back to the first paragraph of my post, you'll see why I feel it makes sense.

With the first post, here are my thoughts. (Not trying to start a fight here, just trying to understand what our constitution was designed for)

If everyone thinks this smoking ban (especially in bars) is a good thing, because they won't smell like smoke when they come home. Do the free market thing and open up a bar that doesn't allow smoking, and see how good you do.

I'm not saying it will fail, not at all. What I'm saying is this country gives all of us the opportunity to capitalize on a niche market. If your passionate about not smelling like smoke when you leave a bar, then open up one that doesn't allow smoking.

The problem is this is a vicious cycle we are starting here.

Now, onto you’re drinking and driving issue. Here are my thoughts on that. The consequences are not high enough for that. I feel if someone is caught drinking and driving and more than twice the legal limit (i.e. .160), they should be charged with attempted manslaughter, loose the car, and a minimum of 1 year in prison. Ok, call me harsh, but you are putting my family and friends in jeopardy by getting behind the wheel.

But this brings me to another point. Why can someone get a ticket for not wearing their seatbelt or helmet, when all they are going to do is hurt them?

But talking on a cell phone while driving, and endangering the public is ok?

See where I’m going with all of this?

Smoking is bad for you, but so is drinking, over eating (don’t even get me started on transfat banning, same point) to much sun, etc. If we let the government start with the smoking, what’s next?

Socialism?

And let me take this smoking tax one step further. Most non-smokers are ok with the government taxing the hell out of the tobacco.

Where does that tax money go? I’ll tell ya, it goes to the S-chip program. I.e. medical for low-income children.

Ok, with that said, if the government banns the use of tobacco, what do you think is going to happen to the tax revenue tobacco is generating for these programs?

I’ll tell ya, it’s going to stop, and the government doesn’t work like us, when our budget just can’t sustains itself, we have to make cuts to our expenditures. When the government’s budget can’t sustain itself, HOLD ONTO YOUR WALLET!!! Because your going to loose!!

The next thing is the government is going to do is move that lost revenue to tax something else they think is bad for us and push that part of the economy out of existence also. But here is where the experts come in. They will tax something that us as citizens use on a day to day basis, something that won’t be shut down that quick. Like Eggs, milk, bread when purchased with transfat margarine, Gas!.

Ok, now that I’ve went off, without dropping an F’bomb, I’m pretty proud of myself. LOL

Oh, and Snakesht, just so you know I’m not pissed, you find a bar that doesn’t allow smoking in it, and I’ll buy the first round!

[Duner]

..........I mean,.........Hellllllllllllllllllllllloooooooo?
I paid for a no smoking room, poptart.
Reeeeeeeeeeeed between the lines, please,...dear.

[Duner]

With the first post, here are my thoughts. (Not trying to start a fight here, just trying to understand what our constitution was designed for)

If everyone thinks this smoking ban (especially in bars) is a good thing, because they won't smell like smoke when they come home. Do the free market thing and open up a bar that doesn't allow smoking, and see how good you do.

I'm not saying it will fail, not at all. What I'm saying is this country gives all of us the opportunity to capitalize on a niche market. If your passionate about not smelling like smoke when you leave a bar, then open up one that doesn't allow smoking.

The problem is this is a vicious cycle we are starting here.

Now, onto you’re drinking and driving issue. Here are my thoughts on that. The consequences are not high enough for that. I feel if someone is caught drinking and driving and more than twice the legal limit (i.e. .160), they should be charged with attempted manslaughter, loose the car, and a minimum of 1 year in prison. Ok, call me harsh, but you are putting my family and friends in jeopardy by getting behind the wheel.

But this brings me to another point. Why can someone get a ticket for not wearing their seatbelt or helmet, when all they are going to do is hurt them?

But talking on a cell phone while driving, and endangering the public is ok?

See where I’m going with all of this?

Smoking is bad for you, but so is drinking, over eating (don’t even get me started on transfat banning, same point) to much sun, etc. If we let the government start with the smoking, what’s next?

Socialism?

And let me take this smoking tax one step further. Most non-smokers are ok with the government taxing the hell out of the tobacco.

Where does that tax money go? I’ll tell ya, it goes to the S-chip program. I.e. medical for low-income children.

Ok, with that said, if the government banns the use of tobacco, what do you think is going to happen to the tax revenue tobacco is generating for these programs?

I’ll tell ya, it’s going to stop, and the government doesn’t work like us, when our budget just can’t sustains itself, we have to make cuts to our expenditures. When the government’s budget can’t sustain itself, HOLD ONTO YOUR WALLET!!! Because your going to loose!!

The next thing is the government is going to do is move that lost revenue to tax something else they think is bad for us and push that part of the economy out of existence also. But here is where the experts come in. They will tax something that us as citizens use on a day to day basis, something that won’t be shut down that quick. Like Eggs, milk, bread when purchased with transfat margarine, Gas!.

Ok, now that I’ve went off, without dropping an F’bomb, I’m pretty proud of myself. LOL

Oh, and Snakesht, just so you know I’m not pissed, you find a bar that doesn’t allow smoking in it, and I’ll buy the first round!


:laughing: I agree....
That stinks....:laughing:

[hellsnat]

In most places you can go to a patio and smoke! If you decide you want to smoke and have a beer, that is cool, but maybe the people around you don't want to smoke but do want to have the beer. If this smoking ban works in every other state, I don't see why the bar owners are afraid to loose business. It’s not like the smokers can find a place that would let them smoke inside.

What if someone wants to sit on the patio that doesn't want to smell like smoke and someone out there is smoking?

You said it's ok for people to smoke out there. Next thing you know it's going to be illegal to smoke on private property.

How about this, lets put it back on the person with the problem with smoking. Don't go there! Pick a place that doesn't allow smoking (or open one up) and have a good time.

And for your last comment, I'm not against establishments banning smoking, I just want to leave it up to the business/market, I don't want to see the government make that decision for anyone.

[hellsnat]

On another note.

How many times have we seen laws that hurt the motorcyclist?

Next thing you know, our motorcycles won't be able to go over 85mph, because over that speed it is an endagerment to others.

But why not just hold the law breakers accountable. If someone does something stupid and gets caught, punish them, don't just change the laws to hurt all bikers.

Am I making any sense? Or do I need to finish my coffee first? (smirk)

[Prostreet1]

I think its should be a choice. I quite smoking 10 years ago because I just felt it was time to quit killing myself. ...but I think establishments should be allowed to either allow it or not. If we don't like to smell like smoke..just don't frequent the smoking establishments that allow it..easy math. If you don't like the movie you can get up and leave ya know?? I will never understand the places that have smoking and non-smoking areas though?? Its like having a non peeing area in a swimming pool?? :wtf: DA...like the smoke knows not to go into the non-smoking areas??
I am not sure about the "against our rights" thing...must of missed the "right to smoke in public places" line in the bill of rights...but life is about choices. Tobacco has been around a long time...its not going to go away any time soon. So trying to force it down someones throat is going to meet with much friction and differences of opinion...which is obvious even in this small group of folks on this forum. So in my humble opinion its about choices.... Now where in the hell did I leave my cigar burning??

[snakesht]

hellsnat, secondhand smoke kills. Prove me wrong, and I'll agree with you. Until then, I think that the government has an obligation to regulate smoking in public places.

BTW, I'm not pissed either. And if you come down to OH, there's plenty of non-smoking bars. ;)

[hellsnat]

(sent on phone, everyone knows I can't spell, lol)

second hand smoke kills. I'm not saying it doesn't.

but so do motorcycles that hit telephone polls. so should we ban telephone polls near roads that motorcycles ride on?

or how about this, don't ride into them, because they can kill you. See where I'm going with this?

if something is bad for you, don't expose yourself to it. easy as that.

the problem I have with all of these things is why should one part of society bend for another, when the party that doesn't like something can just choose not to expose themselves to what they don't like.

that's the beauty of a free market.

oh, and forthe record, I don't smoke, I just see our rights being slowly taken from our citizens.

snake, how far are you from honda east (that big shop)

[Corn Fed]

It all started with mandatory seatbelt laws? Drinking in Resturants could be next? All for the social good?

[hellsnat]

government has an obligation to regulate smoking in public places.


a bar isn't a public place, it isn't owned by the public. its owned by a private citizen, who should be alowed to do what they like. it may be open to the public if the owner so chooses. just like we have the choice to go there.

[fasterbusa]

You keep mixing things together that do not go together, like apples and oranges.

A bar is a private place, that is true as far as that goes.
However, a bar has to be licensed in order to operate legally, so overall, it is not as "private" as you suggest.

As such, that opens it up to be more regulated than someone's house.

One of the responsibilities is to defend the country from invaders, both foreigh and domestic.

Another duty is to collect taxes for the good of all (no comments on how well that works here).

Another is to attempt to work in the best interests of public health.
Epidemics, flu's, environmental aspects and so on.

Here is where we run into the problem about smoking.
It is bad for you and there is zero science that can claim anything else.

Of course, over the course of time, public attitudes change so that something that was ok once upon a time is no longer found to be ok at some later point.

Again, here we are for smoking.

While someone who does not smoke can decide to not go to someplace where people smoke, this is not true for those who work in smokey places and this is one of the footholds that is being used to push the stop smoking agendas.

It is not up to someone to then say that the worker should just take a job someplace else. That is not for someone else to say and it is wrong to think that it is. Many times, one works where one can find the work.

So, currently, a non smoking employee is subjected to all that smoke in their workplace. Does anyone wish to say that they should just then suffer and too bad for them? Does that seem right or fair? I do not think so.

One has no right to smoke, period.
And, as we all learned long ago, someone's "right" to do something ends when it adversely affects another person.

So to say too bad to non smokers who wish to go to a smokey bar to meet there friends, enjoy a meal or watch the game on the big screen is kind of inappropriate, it would seem.

Most non smokers have no problem if smokers want to smoke in there own homes. They just do not feel that they should have to breathe that crap when they are out and about, doing things they are legally allowed to do, going places they are legally allowed to go.

Smoking affects all those around the person.
Drinking a beer does not affect anyone other than the person doing the drinking, at that time. Getting into a car and driving drunk is a different thing and is already illegal everywhere, so again, apples and oranges.

If all those places were smoke free, they would lose no business. Other places have found that they do not lose any income after equilibrium has been acheived in the marketplace.

While the Gov can be seen to intrude more now than at has before, this is not a "bad" thing and is actually when the Gov should be intruding as one is talking about public health.

As can be seen in many environments, if "we" do not clean up after ourselves and take care of things, the Gov is very likely to step in and do it for us.

So, Go Wings! and no smoking in bars, and so on.

[hellsnat]

ok, again sent from phone so I will will be short.

Apples and oranges are both fruit. (smirk)

as far as the non smoker in a smoking environment. I'll try to get this out right.

employment is not the responsibility of an employer. it is the responsibility of the employee.

let me ask this. do you like what you see when you go to hooters? why do you think the staff is good looking? because hooters hires good looking people. should the government say they should employ ugly people? not at all. its their choice.

I'll try to hit your other points later.

remember, it is ultimatly our choice to put our selves in an environment we don't agree with. the world doesn't revolve around a specific person, and the world shouldn't change for someone who has a choice.

and if your friends don't care about your health and won't go to an establishment that is smoke free, maybe they aren't that good of friends (totally joking here, just making a point in a funny way)

[SONNY_TMCF]

I HATE SMOKING, but I dont agree its the govs choice, Imagine if you had millions rapped up in a strip joint or a sports bar and they just say TP BAD , SO SAD !!

I do however LOVE the smoke free enviro but I dont like the gov making the decision

The ban has spoled me here in Ohio, when I go to Ky and walk into a MCd's Im just blown away at how stinky it can be..

[xboxdynasty]

I hate it when chicks hide the fact that they smoke till after ya date them for a month,
Or an onernighter when they light up after sex.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuck......:puke2:

/\ Is that why you're so fond of my mom? :laughing:

[hellsnat]

good point I may have forgot.

I totally hate going into a smoking establishment. smelling of smoke when I get home sucks. but it is an oportunity cost I choose.

one thing to remember to ask ourselves is, how did we become the geratest nation in the world in such a relitively short time?

I'll give my short opinion. Minimal government control over our choices.

If the government 's control is so good, then why isn't the USSR still around.

might be time to remember the old saying, history repeats itself.

(i hate this phone reply stuff, no red squigly line to remind me how jacked up my spelling is!) lol

[hellsnat]

/\ Is that why you're so fond of my mom? :laughing:

ok, that was great! :lol

[snakesht]

I'm pretty much in agreement with fasterbusa, his response is basically what I wanted to say, except better.

hellsnat, is the Honda East you're talking about in Toledo? If so, I'm about 2-2.5 hours from there. I live in the Dayton area, so I'm well south of there.

[SONNY_TMCF]

(sent on phone, everyone knows I can't spell, lol)

second hand smoke kills. I'm not saying it doesn't.

but so do motorcycles that hit telephone polls. so should we ban telephone polls near roads that motorcycles ride on?

or how about this, don't ride into them, because they can kill you. See where I'm going with this?

if something is bad for you, don't expose yourself to it. easy as that.

the problem I have with all of these things is why should one part of society bend for another, when the party that doesn't like something can just choose not to expose themselves to what they don't like.

that's the beauty of a free market.

oh, and forthe record, I don't smoke, I just see our rights being slowly taken from our citizens.

snake, how far are you from honda east (that big shop)


BTW Im from Toledo and if you need a hook up at Honda East Im your man..

www.ToledoMotorCycleForums.com

[fasterbusa]

I think you are mixing fruits again! :)

I think we all agree that intrusion by the Feds is often less than what we want.
However, as times change, public opinion often changes and what was popular once can often be unpopular another time, and it can continue to flip flop again.

You mention that employment is not the responsibility of an employer. it is the responsibility of the employee. A collolary to that is that, by law, the employer must provide a safe working environment for said employee.

Ergo, the problem we are facing today is that working in a smokey environment filled with 2nd hand smoke is in violation of that law as it is no longer safe for the employee.

If this is the case that people are bringing foreward (and it is), then creating the non smoking environment is the required remedy and it is no longer simply the whim of the Gov to step in and solve the problem. The Feds would be doing what they are bound by law to do, protect workers from unsafe working conditions.

Now, a byproduct of this Fed intrusion would be that everyone else would not have to breathe the 2nd hand smoke either.

This case presents problems and solutions to some, depending from where one is viewing the case.

One can complain that this is just another example of the Gov getting too big and sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. This is where you are arguing from.

My point is that workers deserve to work in a safe environment and as a result of the Gov steping in (and really, it would be the People making the politicians in Lansing do this) "clearing the air", I and others can get to breathe cleaner air at many more venues than before.

Certainly, there might be more points of contentions in the overall scheme of the smoking ban, but it seems that this comment mostly covers the important points.

I do not see Gov intrusion here as being a bad thing, leading, via the domino effect, to the downfall of Western Man.

That is not to say that in all cases, the Feds sticking their noses into everything is always a good thing.
Just in this case.

[hellsnat]

I think you are mixing fruits again! :)

I think we all agree that intrusion by the Feds is often less than what we want.
However, as times change, public opinion often changes and what was popular once can often be unpopular another time, and it can continue to flip flop again.

You mention that employment is not the responsibility of an employer. it is the responsibility of the employee. A collolary to that is that, by law, the employer must provide a safe working environment for said employee.

Ergo, the problem we are facing today is that working in a smokey environment filled with 2nd hand smoke is in violation of that law as it is no longer safe for the employee.

If this is the case that people are bringing foreward (and it is), then creating the non smoking environment is the required remedy and it is no longer simply the whim of the Gov to step in and solve the problem. The Feds would be doing what they are bound by law to do, protect workers from unsafe working conditions.

Now, a byproduct of this Fed intrusion would be that everyone else would not have to breathe the 2nd hand smoke either.

This case presents problems and solutions to some, depending from where one is viewing the case.

One can complain that this is just another example of the Gov getting too big and sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. This is where you are arguing from.

My point is that workers deserve to work in a safe environment and as a result of the Gov steping in (and really, it would be the People making the politicians in Lansing do this) "clearing the air", I and others can get to breathe cleaner air at many more venues than before.

Certainly, there might be more points of contentions in the overall scheme of the smoking ban, but it seems that this comment mostly covers the important points.

I do not see Gov intrusion here as being a bad thing, leading, via the domino effect, to the downfall of Western Man.

That is not to say that in all cases, the Feds sticking their noses into everything is always a good thing.
Just in this case.

I love this debate, because no one (that I can tell is getting upset, this is great)

Ok, as far as the "Safe work environment" where does the government draw the line?

Has anyone seen that show "Ax Men" that seems much more dangerous than the waitress/cook at a diner. I don't see the government stepping in and making that a safe working environment. (see where I'm going here?)

Remember, this is just another restriction from the government.

And when you say I am mixing apples and oranges. Can you tell me where/what I'm mixing up?

I just keep bringing other things into the conversation to illustrate my original point.

"Do we really want government to have that much control over us?"

And lets here your thoughts on the Tax revenue from Tobacco, and what will happen when it is completely outlawed.

Do you think the government is going to cut the S-chip program? Or move the tax to something else?

Sorry, maybe me asking the questions on two different subjects is making this conversation difficult. But they are both connected, and are being used to illustrate my point further.

And universal health care is a whole different thread all together. (smirk)

[hellsnat]

I think you are mixing fruits again! :)

I think we all agree that intrusion by the Feds is often less than what we want.
However, as times change, public opinion often changes and what was popular once can often be unpopular another time, and it can continue to flip flop again.

You mention that employment is not the responsibility of an employer. it is the responsibility of the employee. A collolary to that is that, by law, the employer must provide a safe working environment for said employee.

Define what you mean here. How about this, a dish washer could cut themselves on a glass that is broken in a sink full of sudsy water. That isn't a safe working environment, how come the government doesn't step in and fix this from happening?


Ergo, the problem we are facing today is that working in a smokey environment filled with 2nd hand smoke is in violation of that law as it is no longer safe for the employee.

Ok, what was your first job? Was it dangerous? My first job was a corn
de-tasseler, that wasn't a extremely dangerous job per say, but I didn't
think I was going to be one for the rest of my life. I did something to
better myself and get out of that minor dangerous environment. So with
that said, if someone is exposed to second hand smoke for a year, then
isn't exposed to it because they did something to better them selves or
just moved to a better job that doesn't have the exposure to smoke. How
long is it until their body gets rid of the smoke?


If this is the case that people are bringing foreward (and it is), then creating the non smoking environment is the required remedy and it is no longer simply the whim of the Gov to step in and solve the problem. The Feds would be doing what they are bound by law to do, protect workers from unsafe working conditions.

Now, a byproduct of this Fed intrusion would be that everyone else would not have to breathe the 2nd hand smoke either.

This case presents problems and solutions to some, depending from where one is viewing the case.

One can complain that this is just another example of the Gov getting too big and sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. This is where you are arguing from.

Exactly, and to add to this point is where does it stop?


My point is that workers deserve to work in a safe environment and as a result of the Gov steping in (and really, it would be the People making the politicians in Lansing do this) "clearing the air", I and others can get to breathe cleaner air at many more venues than before.

If people feel so pationate about this, and others do as well, then open up
a business and hire this employee. I.E. the only Ramshorn we go to are
the ones that are a smoke free environment.


Certainly, there might be more points of contentions in the overall scheme of the smoking ban, but it seems that this comment mostly covers the important points.

I do not see Gov intrusion here as being a bad thing, leading, via the domino effect, to the downfall of Western Man.

I see this as the begining of Socialism.


That is not to say that in all cases, the Feds sticking their noses into everything is always a good thing.
Just in this case.

And to your last comment on one of the posts. Is there a place that has the game that doesn't allow smoking? Because that is where I want to go!

[Duner]

I love this debate, because no one (that I can tell is getting upset, this is great)

Ok, as far as the "Safe work environment" where does the government draw the line?

Has anyone seen that show "Ax Men" that seems much more dangerous than the waitress/cook at a diner. I don't see the government stepping in and making that a safe working environment. (see where I'm going here?)

Remember, this is just another restriction from the government.

And when you say I am mixing apples and oranges. Can you tell me where/what I'm mixing up?

I just keep bringing other things into the conversation to illustrate my original point.

"Do we really want government to have that much control over us?"

And lets here your thoughts on the Tax revenue from Tobacco, and what will happen when it is completely outlawed.

Do you think the government is going to cut the S-chip program? Or move the tax to something else?

Sorry, maybe me asking the questions on two different subjects is making this conversation difficult. But they are both connected, and are being used to illustrate my point further.

And universal health care is a whole different thread all together. (smirk)


Dude.
Even with qwerty and a mobile app, You really type up a heavy paragraph.:thumb2:

[hellsnat]

Dude.
Even with qwerty and a mobile app, You really type up a heavy paragraph.:thumb2:

If that was a compliment, thank you. And you really don't know how much of an idiot I truly am! :loser::laughing:

[fasterbusa]

Hmmm.
Remember I have broken bones, so typing is a pain right now.

In order to have a meaningful debate, people have to agree to certain ground rules.
One of these is almost always that we will not sling alot of horseshit and be silly in our comments as all that does is mess up the process with alot of garbage that most educated people would rather not deal with.

That being said, we begin.

The comment about the dishwasher cutting himself with a broken glass and that being dangerous and then why doesn't the Gov step in to prevent that follows the line concerning BS. Certainly, an operating license does contain all kinds of regulations regarding something like this kind of accident. And it does happen as to other types of accidents considered to be "normal within the operating parameters defined by the license to operate a business".

One comparing this to the issue of the dangers of working in a smoking environment with all the associated health concerns and then wonder why would the Gov attempt to regulate this problem is without merit.

Comparing a pea to a battle ship is without merit, so people should not do that in the course of a debate. Again, apples and apples.

It is always wonderful when a person is able to gain employment and then be able to better themselves. It is good that you were able to do this and then to continue to gain further education and other forms of employment and so on. THat is something that a society would hope for all of its members.

However, it is not up to me to condem someone who is not able to do that and to then say that since "they" did not take advantage of all the things that "I" did and to make the great choices in education and employment that
"I" did, they should be confined to working in a shithole. Whether that shithole be a smoke filled bar or a slaughter house in August.

I am not sure that anyone has the right to make that statement about someone else. Again, "there but for the grace of God, go I" is something to remember, no matter how high one ascends in society.

Conerning the question of how long do the ill effects of smoking remain in a person if they remove themselves from that invironment, it depends on many things.

Science now tells us that the lungs do not full regenerate over some period of time, as they once thought they did. It depends on genetics, stress levels, general health, age, income as well as some other factors. Some people get better and some do not.

Sometimes, people tell others to simply open up a business and let in whichever patrons the owner would find suitable as a way to satisfy this part of society or that part of society.

As the current, difficult economic times demonstrate, starting and continuing a thriving business is not as simple as just wanting too. Again, this argument is without merit as it makes the point by the use of magic or secret millions that normal people simply do not have.

However, it certainly is nice when a no smoking diner does open up.

The line between Socialism and Capitalism can often be blured, that is true.
Sometimes, what benefits person "A" might penalize person "B". However, that is not the goal of Capitalism, even if it might happen occasionally.

As has been mentioned before, one of the roles of the Gov is to protect society. Sometimes, this means protecting society from itself.
And, as also has been mentioned, the views of society often change over time so that what was once a popular concept might no longer be in vogue.

Smoking everywhere was tolerated by society a great deal more than it is today a generation or 2 ago. However, as the society has evolved, the dangers of smoking and 2nd hand smoke have become more widely known, understood and accepted. With this acceptance, the members of the society are now deciding that some things that used to be widely tolerated will not longer be tolerated for some reason. In this case, the attitudes about smoking in public places are changing to where society is no longer in favor of maintaining the practice.

The motion of the 2 bills in the MI Congress demonstrate that more people are against smoking in bars, diners and so on. In the American way of governing, the majority often get their way. THis is not Socialism, this is how the system of Gov works.

It is doubtful that there are very many sports bars in MI that ban smoking. The general feeling is that that would be an unwise move, as often those wanting to smoke would go elsewhere.

If every sportsbar banned smoking, then that would be a moot point and the statistics from the 30 states that have banned smoking in bars, diners and so on do not demonstrate the naysayers point that people will stop coming. To the contrary, the data from the other states shows that, in most cases, the businesses do better because more people want to eat and relax in a smoke free environment that want to in a smoke filled environment.

The case of the axmen was broached in another thread. The insinuation in the thread was that being a lumberjack or one associated in the harvesting of timber, was a very dangerous job, that did not have government intrusion.

This concept could not be further from the truth. As with all careers that are inherently dangerous, there is an abundance of rules and regs that the government imposes on the operators of such companies.

One should never think that the long arm of the Gov is not everywhere where safety or money are concerned.

Of course, this is not a slam at anyone. These are just my thoughts.

[hellsnat]

Hmmm.
Remember I have broken bones, so typing is a pain right now.

Doh, how in the heck are you typing? I totally forgot about that. How come this debate couldn't have come up before your injury? I feel your pain on that.

In order to have a meaningful debate, people have to agree to certain ground rules.
One of these is almost always that we will not sling alot of horseshit and be silly in our comments as all that does is mess up the process with alot of garbage that most educated people would rather not deal with.

That being said, we begin.

Agreed.

The comment about the dishwasher cutting himself with a broken glass and that being dangerous and then why doesn't the Gov step in to prevent that follows the line concerning BS. Certainly, an operating license does contain all kinds of regulations regarding something like this kind of accident. And it does happen as to other types of accidents considered to be "normal within the operating parameters defined by the license to operate a business".

One comparing this to the issue of the dangers of working in a smoking environment with all the associated health concerns and then wonder why would the Gov attempt to regulate this problem is without merit.

Comparing a pea to a battle ship is without merit, so people should not do that in the course of a debate. Again, apples and apples.

Ok, this might have to be a different thread all together, but where I was going with this is, if someone doesn't like something they think the business needs to change it's ways. I.E. make the business buy thicker glasses so they won't break in the sink. Or make a better lid on a coffee cup so when they put in in-between their legs, then do something stupid and get burned, it's not the fault of the business. (I know, going off on another orange thing. LOL)


It is always wonderful when a person is able to gain employment and then be able to better themselves. It is good that you were able to do this and then to continue to gain further education and other forms of employment and so on. THat is something that a society would hope for all of its members.

However, it is not up to me to condem someone who is not able to do that and to then say that since "they" did not take advantage of all the things that "I" did and to make the great choices in education and employment that
"I" did, they should be confined to working in a shithole. Whether that shithole be a smoke filled bar or a slaughter house in August.

I am not sure that anyone has the right to make that statement about someone else. Again, "there but for the grace of God, go I" is something to remember, no matter how high one ascends in society.

Ok, this wasn't said to put myself on a pedestal. Not at all, what I originally typed was asking what your first job was. Then I changed it. I didn't want it to come out like you started off from nothing. (no disrespect intended, that's why I started with my own experience).

My point was manifest destiny. If someone doesn't think they can do any better, they won't. If someone doesn't like where they are, then do something to make yourself more marketable, don't complain about the situation you put yourself in, and expect the world to change for you.

I'm not saying that smoking isn't bad for people at all. I am totally aware of the health risks involved. What I'm saying is, if someone doesn't want to work in a smoking environment, then they will have an opportunity cost.

Conerning the question of how long do the ill effects of smoking remain in a person if they remove themselves from that invironment, it depends on many things.

Science now tells us that the lungs do not full regenerate over some period of time, as they once thought they did. It depends on genetics, stress levels, general health, age, income as well as some other factors. Some people get better and some do not.

My point on this one was there are many statistics on this one and no one can put a finger on it.

Sometimes, people tell others to simply open up a business and let in whichever patrons the owner would find suitable as a way to satisfy this part of society or that part of society.

As the current, difficult economic times demonstrate, starting and continuing a thriving business is not as simple as just wanting too. Again, this argument is without merit as it makes the point by the use of magic or secret millions that normal people simply do not have.

I'm not insinuating that you should open up this environment, what I'm saying is if there are enough people to support such an environment, the free market will prevail and it will happen, it may not be as quick as people want, but it will happen. Like I have said, and I keep hearing on here, just about everyone (including me) doesn't like going to a smoking environment. (again, I'm not bashing on someone for not being able to open up something like this)

Ok, let me ask you this.

What if I wanted to open a private club that allowed smoking, and hired people that signed a "I'm willing to accept the results of working in a smoking environment" agreement?

Would this be ok? If so, why?

And what about the establishments that are going to take a hit. I know you have stats that say places are doing better (and I agree with those stats) but what about the Hucka (sp) bars? What about the smoking establishments that border the states that don't allow smoking, what do you think is going to happen there?

If the government is going to make a law to put an establishment out of business, what should be done?

Should the government come in and give the business the fair market price for their business?

And if this happens, where do people think the money for that is going to come from? (see my sig)

(by the way, I'm loving this, I love seeing/understanding the other side of the debate. And I think everyone knows my fear)

[hellsnat]

Oh, and when I say "you" 90% of the time I'm saying "you" in the reference to people that agree with the government banning personal choice. (smirk)

[SONNY_TMCF]

Theres not a GAWD GIVIN right to go into any bar whenever you want...

OWNERS of the bars should be making the rules..

AGAIN I dont smoke and I hate smoking..

BUT, If there is a smoking bar I make the choice to go in or not.. Not the gov

[fasterbusa]

Well, my first job was shovelling snow for the neighbors when I was 8.
I then had a paper route for many years as well as working summers for an Consulting Engineering firm as third man on a survey crew. I did both the paper route and work on the survery crew until I entered the USMC and so on.

You mention that this was where you were going with this, that if someone does not like something that a business does, that they should get the business to change how it operates.

Well, that is what is happening.
The people are wanting a change and have pressured there members of Congress to affect this change. The Congresscriters are doing as their constituents want and are now moving foreward to ban smoking in public places like bars and so on. This is not the Gov that is banning smoking, it is the Gov operating in a manner dictated to them by the will of the people. The majority here.

The opponents to the ban are the groups that represent the foods industrys, diners, restaurants and so on.

Manifest Destiny is defined as:
NOUN:
A policy of imperialistic expansion defended as necessary or benevolent.
Or as:
The 19th-century doctrine that the United States had the right and duty to expand throughout the North American continent.

This is defined here simply to clarify the point. :)
However, I do understand what you mean.
It is simply the case, given how broad this great country is, that not everyone has the opportunity, perhaps the timing of that chance, to learn and grow. As such, there are numerous small towns, dying cites and so on where a single mother might have to work in a shitty bar or diner amidst the smoke and chaos, because that is all that she is able to do or has time to do.

There are many other examples of people, other than the single mother, who, for whatever reason, might have to work in that same type or similar kind of environment.

Case in point, in my work, I often have to enter automobile plants, assembly plants, petrochemical plants and so on to do my thing.

Even though improvements have been made throughout these industries, many of these places are crappy, filthy places. The air can be filled with cutting oils, mists of lubricants mixed with steam, and other dangerous chemicals.

I have to go into these places to work on whatever problems the plant is experiencing. Breathing this stuff is not good, period. Yet, many of the long time workers remark "You should have seen it before we cleaned it up, it was terrible". I would much rather these places be cleaned up much more, but this is where my career takes me, whether in MI or in China.

I simply make more money than the single mother working in the bar, and I probably have more degrees that she does, but often the crappy conditions are the same in terms of danger to one's health.

I simply do not have to work in the same filthy plant for 30 years. I might go to many different ones in the same time period, but at least I am varying the environment.

So, government intrusion is what helped the auto plants to become "cleaner", although many still have a long way to go.

I have also worked in plants where no person has ever lived long enough to retire, due to the toxic conditions of the plants. That is kind of scary. Yet, these places exist because they make necessary products for "us".

Whether one believes in the statistics of how dangerous smoking is or not, that does not change the accepted science that smoking is very dangerous and no one truely beleives that it is good for you. One can pretend otherwise, but that would not be the truth of things.

The free market is not magical in that no harm can come to people if a society is run totally by a free market economy. The purpose of the Gov is to make sure that certain safeguards are in place to protect all of the members of the free market society. Otherwise, bad people would attempt to control the free market from behind the scenes and then it would no longer be a truely free market.

Again, one of the roles of the Gov is to protect all its members, often from themselves as well as from external forces.

A "what if" question has been raised.
What if, someone wanted to open a private club that allowed smoking, and hired people that signed a "I'm willing to accept the results of working in a smoking environment" agreement?

Would this be ok? If so, why?

This is pretty much a different topic as an owner would still have to conform to existing laws as well as regulations.
The assumption that is being made is that by being "private", anything goes and this is not possible as again, laws exist that must be follwed. This would be why an attorney has to be involved in the creation of such a club, so that all local, state and federal laws would be followed.

In MI and in most other states, this utopian cannot exist in the form that is being suggested. Too many laws, labor, environmental and so on have to be followed.
However, it might be possible, given all the hoops that one would have to jump through, to create some private club-type facility. It simply has to be done carefully.

And, the wait staff in such a club could still sue for damages as a result of health concerns. One cannot sign away their right to compensations for harm done to themselves all that easily. And, again, there are tons of lawyers ready to take on such cases, just because.

Also, even if an employee signed the paper stating that "I'm willing to accept the results of working in a smoking environment", that paper would be meaningless in the eyes of the Court.

Again, that "document" would not be enforceable because there would be too many unknowns down the road that could not be foreseen today.
Also, the Court would view that document as being null because the Court could make the case that the employee signed under duress, almost as a form of slavery. The reason would be that no thinking person would sign away their right to work in a safe environment willingly.

One would have to define which establishments would be the ones taking a hit. One is assuming currently, that this place or that would take the hit. One has to show particular cases where establishments have suffered before making a case to the Gov for relief.

If one speaks to the concerns of the enterprises located along the border, then it would be more of a matter of equilibrium. Those locations might have been able to have advantages over others not found along the border for some time. Now, the advantage might be lost. But that is one of the pitfalls of a business. In those cases, that would be an arguement for having all the states become non smoking so that it would not matter.

Sometimes, if a private party can prove that hardships created by the Gov have proven to be super detrimental to the operation of said business, then the opportunity for relief might stand a chance. The Gov would resolve those issuses on a case by case basis and one cannot determine how things will unfold at this time, given no specifics. But, it has happened where the Gov has had to fix a problem that it created.

In a legal enterprise, the Gov does not make rules that put businesses out of business. It is the failure of the business to conform to the rules that forces the business to fail. That is different from what was inferred in the statement.

One of the goals of the Gov is to try to set an even playing field for all businesses, or at least businesses that are similar. The Gov does not want people to fail and offers lots of guidance and help to businesses.

However, one has to remember that the Gov also deals in protecting the public health of the society. So, most of the time, public health wins out over a business. (although not always)

Ouch!
That's enough for now.

[hellsnat]

Well, my first job was shovelling snow for the neighbors when I was 8.
I then had a paper route for many years as well as working summers for an Consulting Engineering firm as third man on a survey crew. I did both the paper route and work on the survery crew until I entered the USMC and so on.

You mention that this was where you were going with this, that if someone does not like something that a business does, that they should get the business to change how it operates.

Actually, what I meant was why a business should change because someone doesn't like a part of it. If they don't like it, they are not mandated to use/work in it.

Well, that is what is happening.
The people are wanting a change and have pressured there members of Congress to affect this change. The Congresscriters are doing as their constituents want and are now moving foreward to ban smoking in public places like bars and so on. This is not the Gov that is banning smoking, it is the Gov operating in a manner dictated to them by the will of the people. The majority here.

The opponents to the ban are the groups that represent the foods industrys, diners, restaurants and so on.

Let me ask this. If smoking is so bad, why not just make it illegal all together? Like Crack/Cocaine/stuff like that? It is a harmful drug correct? I actually would support this more, than what is currently happening. (What I don’t support about any of this is the tax revenue that will be placed on another part of our livelihood because of the loss of this industry)

Then why pick apart private enterprise a small portion at a time? Why not just pass a law making it illegal all together? This makes more sense. (I can argue both sides of this drug coin, but it's another thread all together)

As such, there are numerous small towns, dying cites and so on where a single mother might have to work in a shitty bar or diner amidst the smoke and chaos, because that is all that she is able to do or has time to do.

There are many other examples of people, other than the single mother, who, for whatever reason, might have to work in that same type or similar kind of environment.


Ok, this is going to ruffle some feathers, but here is my comment on this.

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Right?

That was a choice, might not have been one in the best interest of someone but it was a choice. These single parents choose to be parents when it is boiled down to the core issue. I don't mean to sound heartless, and if anyone here knows my personal life, they will know what program I am currently volunteering for. (Another whole debate, but the fundamental statement is the key)

Case in point, in my work, I often have to enter automobile plants, assembly plants, petrochemical plants and so on to do my thing.

Even though improvements have been made throughout these industries, many of these places are crappy, filthy places. The air can be filled with cutting oils, mists of lubricants mixed with steam, and other dangerous chemicals.

I have to go into these places to work on whatever problems the plant is experiencing. Breathing this stuff is not good, period. Yet, many of the long time workers remark "You should have seen it before we cleaned it up, it was terrible". I would much rather these places be cleaned up much more, but this is where my career takes me, whether in MI or in China.

I simply make more money than the single mother working in the bar, and I probably have more degrees that she does, but often the crappy conditions are the same in terms of danger to one's health.

I simply do not have to work in the same filthy plant for 30 years. I might go to many different ones in the same time period, but at least I am varying the environment.

So, government intrusion is what helped the auto plants to become "cleaner", although many still have a long way to go.

I agree with you here, but this is another big debate on where the money will come from to clean it up. My dad retired from GM, and had to work in this environment. Your right it is getting better, but it is a slow process. What happens now is if the government was to implement a mandated “air quality score” it would cripple, if not shut down the big three plants. This needs to be taken by many small steps.

I have also worked in plants where no person has ever lived long enough to retire, due to the toxic conditions of the plants. That is kind of scary. Yet, these places exist because they make necessary products for "us".

I really don’t have a comment for this. Other than the people that work there must know about the retiree’s, or lack there of.

Whether one believes in the statistics of how dangerous smoking is or not, that does not change the accepted science that smoking is very dangerous and no one truely beleives that it is good for you. One can pretend otherwise, but that would not be the truth of things.

Nope, not pretending. Totally agree with this. Which brings me to my other comment on why not just ban it all together.

The free market is not magical in that no harm can come to people if a society is run totally by a free market economy. The purpose of the Gov is to make sure that certain safeguards are in place to protect all of the members of the free market society. Otherwise, bad people would attempt to control the free market from behind the scenes and then it would no longer be a truely free market.

Again, one of the roles of the Gov is to protect all its members, often from themselves as well as from external forces..

Totally understand this. I don’t think the Free Market is the almighty power, but it is what made our country the great nation it currently is, and if someone wants to debate this. Just do some research on why the first colonies didn’t survive.

I totally believe in government in certain aspects of our lives.

If one speaks to the concerns of the enterprises located along the border, then it would be more of a matter of equilibrium. Those locations might have been able to have advantages over others not found along the border for some time. Now, the advantage might be lost. But that is one of the pitfalls of a business. In those cases, that would be an arguement for having all the states become non smoking so that it would not matter.

Non smoking? Or how about just outlawing Tobacco all together? There is a difference here. Non Smoking = it’s ok somewhere. Illegal all together would mean it isn’t legal anywhere. I.E. illegal drugs.

Sometimes, if a private party can prove that hardships created by the Gov have proven to be super detrimental to the operation of said business, then the opportunity for relief might stand a chance. The Gov would resolve those issuses on a case by case basis and one cannot determine how things will unfold at this time, given no specifics. But, it has happened where the Gov has had to fix a problem that it created.

Yes at the expense of the tax payers. (smirk)

In a legal enterprise, the Gov does not make rules that put businesses out of business. It is the failure of the business to conform to the rules that forces the business to fail. That is different from what was inferred in the statement.

Actually these business were at one time “legal.” How about the Hukka Bars (sp) These will be put out of business and were once legal. Correct?

However, one has to remember that the Gov also deals in protecting the public health of the society. So, most of the time, public health wins out over a business. (although not always)

And I can agree with this, not whole heartedly, because there are other issues that may come up, but that is another subject all together.

Ouch!
That's enough for now.

I honestly don’t know how you do it. And I’m not making all these points to get you to stress your arm/shoulder out. (smirk)

I just love this debate. I can totally see both sides of it!

[Duner]

.........The free market is not magical in that no harm can come to people if a society is run totally by a free market economy. The purpose of the Gov is to make sure that certain safeguards are in place to protect all of the members of the free market society. Otherwise, bad people would attempt to control the free market from behind the scenes and then it would no longer be a truely free market....


:jawdrop:
You mean like when the free market is like a virus consuming it's hosts till they die together instead of having a symbiant relationship?:jawdrop:

I totally agree! :)

[fasterbusa]

Generally, as with most people too, a business will not change something unless it sees some form of reward for doing so. A lot of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of thinking. Not too many small businesses do forecast projection and things like that in an effort to position themselves to be in the right spot in the near future.

Many firms and businesses have a "wait and see" type approach. There can be pros and cons for doing things both ways.

The total ban of smoking in this country is a great idea and one that is very complicated. Jobs for American's, farmers who grow, distribution systems, enterprise businesses and so on all have to be accounted for.

A great idea, not easily achieved.
However, the tobacco company's note that they pretty much could end smoking in America and be ok because they are selling so much to the rest of the world, especially the Asian communities.

Money, not morality is at work in that industry, big time.
Years ago they did a survey of the owners and biggies in the tobacco companys and none of these people wanted their kids to start smoking. Kind of a telling statement, it would seem.

While many people would agree about the concerns of becoming a single parent family, that is sort of besides the point, and if anything, too little, too late.

Some people make value judgements concerning single mother's and so on and really, that is not the right thing to do. As some say, you should not talk down about someone until you have walked a mile in there shoes.

Big problems will ever be solved if, as an example with the smoking ban, people blame single mother's and the poor choices that they made years ago with regard to some kind of causal affect on this problem.

Again, people often work where they can, not where they want too. It is called work because if it were fun, it would be called Play.

It would seem that continually repeating the statement that the single mother working in the smokey bar is there because of her own damm choices and so on, when she might be there because she is not able to be someplace, anyplace else.

Many of us are very lucky that we have been afforded the educational abilities that we have had, or the employment opportunities that we enjoy. People should give thanks that they have been so fortunate, not castigate other's who might not have been so lucky.

Anyway, one can say that everyone is responsible for their own actions, but one has to remember that we are not in a vacuum.

In reality, very few of us are able to make decisions perfectly devoid of any type of outside influence or interference.

We like to think that we make decisions free and clear, but that is just not often the case. So, again, only within a very small moment in time, are people really acting without outside influence.

An example might be someone being raised in the "perfect American small town home" and leading the perfectly laid out life, when suddenly their parents are killed in a car accident and they are tossed into the Gov run foster care system. Suddenly, that perfect lfe would be very different and many decisions made from that point foreward would be adversly influenced by the foster care life experiences. Often, not a good thing.

You are forgetting that the Gov did force alot of clean air standards on both the entire auto industry and the power generation industry 20 years ago. It cost a fortune and caused a lot of problems, to be sure.

One would have to guess that like any leviathon, a company as large as GM moves slowly, weighing every cost and benefit as it goes. It would be doubtful that the Gov would wish to try to fully force compliance on something as large as the auto industry as that would be much worse then implementing change one bit at a time over a long period.

Remember that the auto company's used to affect 7 out of every 10 jobs in the entire country, so to screw that up would affect 70% of the entire workforce of the nation. That would be an unwise thing.

But, as in the case of your father's career, change did happen. It probably was like pulling teeth, an uphill battle the entire way, with varying degrees of success, sometimes so small that the successes were hard to measure.
But, things did change for the better.

The very deadly plants that I mentioned paid well for the area, very well. And, people need to eat. So, one takes the good paying job and simply deals with the dangers. When most of society is young, they feel invincible! Over time, those same members often realize that now they are in deep shit.

But, if one is unskilled and seeks a very good paying job, what do you do? You take the job and your chances and that is how things go. The east coast is full of very neseccary, but very deadly chemical plants and that is where the jobs are.

Ultimately, many of us are probably on the side of the smoking ban, encouraging it.

The idea of the Gov stepping in is often unpalatable, but for some things, they have the ability to get things done, hopefully for the benefit of society.

[hellsnat]

With the statement about the single mother, I totally understand what they are going through. Trust me, and again if people knew where I volunteered weekly, they would understand that I’m not the prick I may be coming across as.

My whole thing is, why should someone else suffer because of a decision I made in the past?

With the deadly chemical factory with no retirees. It is coming across as well, it’s ok there. What is the difference? It would seem there is more data stating the dangers of that job. And can someone sue the hell out of them because of the unsafe environment the employer put them in?

It would seem like this is more apples and oranges. Or the same thing to be honest.

And why can’t we ban it totally? If it’s so bad for people, then we need to ban it all together.

Then if we ban it, and let businesses still manufacture it we would be drug dealers.

If it’s ok some place why isn’t it ok somewhere else?

[hellsnat]

I'm a fan of places that don't allow smoking!

What I'm not a fan of, is the double standard the government is enforcing.

[fasterbusa]

Well, one thing to remember is that the Government is not some board of all powerful people. It is us, the people of the country.

And often, people have their own agendas, bicker for seeminly no good reason, sometimes show a complete lack of logical behavior and so on.

With all those traits, it is not too surprising that it takes the Gov a long time to get things done, as a general rule.

One day, smoking in this country will probably be unlawful due to the impact on public health. Not today and not tomorrow, but someday.

Of course, like these days, cutting lots of jobs for Americans would not be a good thing, given the current economy. So, until things are much better, there will not be too much action on the total ban of smoking.

But we are making headway.

[hellsnat]

But we are making headway.

Absolutely!

I don't think we have beat a dead horse yet, the great thing about a debate is the amount of other issues that are brought to light.

I.E. it's ok for one business to kill it's employees, but not for another.

Trust me when I say I feel there are major benefits of the no smoking ban. What I don't like is the way it's being done.

And like I have said before, if it is honestly that bad for the health of a nation, why not ban it all together?

Rather than pick apart private enterprise?

[Vash]

On matts request I'll give my buck fifty.

1. The weakest argument on any subject is the slippery slope argument. What if they take <blank> to a silly level?
2. The constituational argument is lacking data. In order to argue that second hand smoke does harm, one has to show how much harm it does, and this is very difficult to do. Sure, locking up a person in a smoke filled roomed for years will likely be very bad for them, but locking up a person in a room filled with other common substances is likely bad for them as well. What I want to know is how much less time will I live is someone smokes a cigarette near me, and no one can answer that.
3. The non-smoking waitress argument: There are plenty of dangerous jobs out there, like underwater welding. Dangerous jobs tend to pay more, and perhaps working in a establishemtn would pay more too, if the effect wasnt hidden by minimum wage. Ironically, this would make being a smoker an asset in some job markets.
4. The "Its gross" argument. So is farting.

Personally, I think the law sucks because it tries to be too damn specific (a problem with most laws). If, instead of trying to regulate behaviour, it would simply mendate safe air concentrations for an establishment, the whole problem would go away. The cheapest way to comply would be to ban smoking, and establishments that follow that route will save operating costs, and can offer better deals but to a more limited clientele. One could also comply by installing a good filtration system (easier in a new building, think a clean room like setup where air flows from the cieling and thru a corragated floor). This setup will be expensive, and the establishment will have to charge more to cover their overhead. Now people can go to a cheaper non-smoking bar, or a more expensive smoking one, that doesnt smell like smoke. Yey we all win.

[Duner]

:laughing::laughing::laughing:
Vash.
No.... "Hello everybody, I finally made it over to your forum to hang out."......for a first post?

:laughing::):hi:

[hellsnat]

Personally, I think the law sucks because it tries to be too damn specific (a problem with most laws). If, instead of trying to regulate behavior, it would simply mandate safe air concentrations for an establishment, the whole problem would go away. The cheapest way to comply would be to ban smoking, and establishments that follow that route will save operating costs, and can offer better deals but to a more limited clientele. One could also comply by installing a good filtration system (easier in a new building, think a clean room like setup where air flows from the cieling and thru a corragated floor). This setup will be expensive, and the establishment will have to charge more to cover their overhead. Now people can go to a cheaper non-smoking bar, or a more expensive smoking one, that doesnt smell like smoke. Yey we all win.

I knew you would bring another idea to the conversation.

And I have to agree with Duner. That was some funny stuff. No Hi everyone. Just right to the post.

Funny stuff buddy.

[Duner]

2. The constituational argument is lacking data. In order to argue that second hand smoke does harm, one has to show how much harm it does, and this is very difficult to do. Sure, locking up a person in a smoke filled roomed for years will likely be very bad for them, but locking up a person in a room filled with other common substances is likely bad for them as well. What I want to know is how much less time will I live is someone smokes a cigarette near me, and no one can answer that.
.

I have known about 8 people that have been diagnosed with asthma from second hand smoke exposure from a parent or guardian during childhood.
My wife is one of the 8.
Never smoked,
No bar, nightclub history.
I did know three waitresses diagnosed with bad allergies beginning in their early twenties from smoke exposure in the workplace.

[hellsnat]

I have known about 8 people that have been diagnosed with asthma from second hand smoke exposure from a parent or guardian during childhood.
My wife is one of the 8.

Would this ban have kept this from happening? (no disrespect is meant with this comment)

I think outlawing smoking tobacco would have.

I totally can't stand when I see someone holding a baby in one arm, and a cig in the other.

[Vash]

I have known about 8 people that have been diagnosed with asthma from second hand smoke exposure from a parent or guardian during childhood.
My wife is one of the 8.
Never smoked,
No bar, nightclub history.
I did know three waitresses diagnosed with bad allergies beginning in their early twenties from smoke exposure in the workplace.

Umm, first off, hi and stuff. I would've typed more, but having to read 5 pages worth of this and that taken the energy out of me.

Duner: Personal examples are the antithesis of good policy. First, it discourages exchange of opinion, because now anything I say to disagree with you, can be taken as wishing your wife something evil. And second its because they can mean less than nothing, statistically speaking. Look, out of the worlds population there are a few people who got better after they started smoking. There are certainly lots of people who are no worse for first or second hand smoke. If I bring them up, and tell you that they are all my uncles doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Again, I think the reason for most gov't growth wether here or in the USSR is because of too narrowly written, bad laws. Dont regulate smoking, regulate air purity.
Dont regulate drunk driving, establish a way to rate safety, and regulate it. Hey, have a slow moving drunk/cell phone lane!
When you write laws in a very limited, narrow sense, you end up with total clusterfucks, that only get worse as they get older. Like subsidizing products to compete with subsidized products.

[Duner]

Would this ban have kept this from happening? (no disrespect is meant with this comment)

I think outlawing smoking tobacco would have.

I totally can't stand when I see someone holding a baby in one arm, and a cig in the other.

Man,....
I just typed in a huge paragraph and lost it in the logon....:huh:
fuck.

um.........possibly. Not necessarily.

[Duner]

Umm, first off, hi and stuff. I would've typed more, but having to read 5 pages worth of this and that taken the energy out of me. .
:laughing: I understand....:laughing:


.[/QUOTE]
Duner: Personal examples are the antithesis of good policy. First, it discourages exchange of opinion, because now anything I say to disagree with you, can be taken as wishing your wife something evil. And second its because they can mean less than nothing, statistically speaking..[/QUOTE]
Can be true, but not with me.
I'm not that fussy.:)

.[/QUOTE]
Look, out of the worlds population there are a few people who got better after they started smoking. There are certainly lots of people who are no worse for first or second hand smoke. If I bring them up, and tell you that they are all my uncles doesn't add anything to the discussion..[/QUOTE]
Agreed...


.[/QUOTE]
Again, I think the reason for most gov't growth wether here or in the USSR is because of too narrowly written, bad laws. Dont regulate smoking, regulate air purity.
Dont regulate drunk driving, establish a way to rate safety, and regulate it. Hey, have a slow moving drunk/cell phone lane!
When you write laws in a very limited, narrow sense, you end up with total clusterfucks, that only get worse as they get older. Like subsidizing products to compete with subsidized products.[/QUOTE]
Mmmmmmmm........in some cases yes.
Sitting on the fence is always difficult.

[hellsnat]

Man,....
I just typed in a huge paragraph and lost it in the logon....:huh:
fuck.

um.........possibly. Not necessarily.

ROFLMAO!!! Dude, I've done the same thing a couple of times.

Glad to see I'm not the only one that this happens to. LOL

[fasterbusa]

A simple and inexpensive method would be to ban smoking.
A very expensive method would be to require, with all the necessary regulations, paper work, lawyers et al, the installation of very expensive air purification systems.

Hmmm.
It would seem that in an ideal world, where cost was no object, the later method might be very good. But in the real world where people live, it is doubtful that this later scheme would be implemented.

So to the solution to drunk driving.
One way is to be hyper-draconian with offenders, which would be the cheapest route.
Or, design, construct and maintain exotic anti drunk schemes for those offenders.

It is only tax money, so which solution would be preferable?

It is not that solutions for problems cannot be found. The problem for society is to find solutions that are realistic, will be followed and are cost effective.

As an aside, people do not smoke on airplanes in the US anymore because of all the health problems that the stewardesses ended up with.
A simple solution, they banned smoking on planes.
I am pretty sure that people still fly on commercial air carriers.

[hellsnat]

A simple and inexpensive meathod would be to ban the burning of tobacco all together.

Right?

[Duner]

If we outlaw tobacco, like marijuana,
that might create a whole new mess of problems.

[hellsnat]

If we outlaw tobacco, like marijuana,
that might create a whole new mess of problems.

Yes and no, the Marijuana debate is for a whole different thread.

But I wasn't meaning outlaw Tobacco, just the use of tobacco where second hand smoke can "hurt" someone.

[hellsnat]

Or just nip it in the bud and say it is illegal to burn tobacco.

[jjkGURU]

Looks like Jenny will pass this......thoughts?

I don't like the govt telling me what to do but in this case,
it will be nice to not smell like an ash tray after a night out. :dunno:

:smilepopcorn:

mb.

i'm all for it - i can't wait till i can come home from the bar and not smell like i was hanging out in The Smokers Outlet for 12hrs...

and for employees that don't smoke, it is terrible

NY has this in place now, and after a whole day skiing, drinking & eating in a bar without smoke was wonderful

:cheers:

btw anywhere outside is acceptable in my eyse for smokers though (except right outside the office doors & disneyworld) lol

[fasterbusa]

Again, sometimes things are just not as simple as one would hope.
James's post is a good one though.
He had a great time and did not have to smell like an ashtray not breathe all that crap the entire time.

How can one be against that?

[hellsnat]

Again, sometimes things are just not as simple as one would hope.
James's post is a good one though.
He had a great time and did not have to smell like an ashtray not breathe all that crap the entire time.

How can one be against that?

Oh, I'm not against that at all. And trust me, I'm enjoy it.

Just the push from big brother to make it happen is what my issue is.

(I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I know I will benifit from this ban, but there are many government programs that I benifit from at the expense of others, that isn't right)

[Vash]

A simple and inexpensive method would be to ban smoking.
A very expensive method would be to require, with all the necessary regulations, paper work, lawyers et al, the installation of very expensive air purification systems.

Hmmm.
It would seem that in an ideal world, where cost was no object, the later method might be very good. But in the real world where people live, it is doubtful that this later scheme would be implemented.

So to the solution to drunk driving.
One way is to be hyper-draconian with offenders, which would be the cheapest route.
Or, design, construct and maintain exotic anti drunk schemes for those offenders.

It is only tax money, so which solution would be preferable?

It is not that solutions for problems cannot be found. The problem for society is to find solutions that are realistic, will be followed and are cost effective.

As an aside, people do not smoke on airplanes in the US anymore because of all the health problems that the stewardesses ended up with.
A simple solution, they banned smoking on planes.
I am pretty sure that people still fly on commercial air carriers.

Lets leave the drunk driving for another thread, but requiring air purity instead of banning smoking costs the tax payers very little. Enforcement is easy, and detectors are relativly cheap. The cost of purifying go to the buisness only if they wish to spend them, they can just ban smoking in their own establishment, on their own, and spend little to no money.

And flying on commerical carriers sucks, smoking or no.

[jjkGURU]

Oh, I'm not against that at all. And trust me, I'm enjoy it.

Just the push from big brother to make it happen is what my issue is.

(I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I know I will benifit from this ban, but there are many government programs that I benifit from at the expense of others, that isn't right)

that's why i put the last part in - if people want to smoke, fine, i'm not their mom, but knowing the terrible health effects it can have on others is more then reason enough to ban it from indoors IMO, but looking at the public money being spent on health care is the government's buisness case for it.

[Duner]

I'd just hate to be in a bar with Eric and see him suffer from not having a smoke.























I'd need to turn in the other direction or something.....:laughing:

[Cage]

I think the ban is a great thing, protect the public from a class A carcinogen(sp?). That is what the government is supposed to do. When I lived in New York they had just passed their "smoking ban", people freaked at first, then the bars flooded with people that wouldn't normally go out because of the smoke. The smokers however, didn't come up short in the bar scene. All the bars that really wanted to allow smoking became private clubs, thus smoking was allowed as you had to pay to be a member. The membership fee was $.50, it also came with a coupon for $.50 off your first drink as a member. I don't think it's as big a deal as it's being made out to be.

[Jeremichi]

Im all for this law!:thumb2:

[hellsnat]

I think the ban is a great thing, protect the public from a class A carcinogen(sp?).


Then why not ban the burning of tobacco all together?

Also, you defeat your own argument in your comment.

But like you said, when there is a loophole, people will work around it. I.E. private clubs.

As I stated in my previous posts. I just don't like the governments control over private business.

If it's a bad thing and so bad for people, ban it just like other drugs.

[Cage]

Then why not ban the burning of tobacco all together?

Also, you defeat your own argument in your comment.

But like you said, when there is a loophole, people will work around it. I.E. private clubs.

As I stated in my previous posts. I just don't like the governments control over private business.

If it's a bad thing and so bad for people, ban it just like other drugs.
can't ban tobacco, too many politicians would have to find new contributors for their campaigns.

when it boils down to what really sways the lawmakers in this country, you don't have to look any further than their own pockets. Nobody gives a fuck about you or me or any other normal person living here, what is gonna get them paid the most is what they are going to push for.

[hellsnat]

can't ban tobacco, too many politicians would have to find new contributors for their campaigns.

when it boils down to what really sways the lawmakers in this country, you don't have to look any further than their own pockets. Nobody gives a fuck about you or me or any other normal person living here, what is gonna get them paid the most is what they are going to push for.

So can I say we agree that the government has to much control?

And actually has no reason (other than their pocketbooks) to make this ban?

[fasterbusa]

I think you are again, overbroad in some of your thoughts.
The Gov does not have too much control.
The power of the Gov comes from the people who elect it.
So, in theory, the Gov has just as much power and control as the Citizens have decided to give it.

In some areas, in some people's opinions, the Gov may or may not have too much control. It often depends on which side of the coin one is on.

If you had a severly handicapped child, whose treatments cost a fortune, you might really enjoy and appreciate if the Gov stepped in to offer you and your wife a ton of assistance. Would that be bad?

But I, who does not have any children, might begin to talk about how "out of control the Gov is getting, helping these people with their damm retarded kid, blah, blah, blah.

So, in this example, how much "Control" do you think you might be wanting?

As for the smoking thing, it would be nice to not grow it or have anything to do with it in this country.

Except for those states whose income depends on that cash crop and all the people who earn their living growing, harvesting, selling, tobacco products.

You are involved with the Coast Guard.
Well, some could say that we should just disolve the Coast Guard as they would not be necessary once we realize that going out onto the open water is dangerous. Banning people from venturing out onto the water is a good thing for the society at large, so we do not need the Coasties to help people on the water.

So there goes your job.
And yes, that would be an example of too much Gov control.

Again, things are not perfect, but over time, we try to change things for the better.

[Duner]

I think everybody waffles, depending on how goverment control affects things they are involved with.:D

[hellsnat]

I think you are again, overbroad in some of your thoughts.
The Gov does not have too much control.
The power of the Gov comes from the people who elect it.
So, in theory, the Gov has just as much power and control as the Citizens have decided to give it.

In some areas, in some people's opinions, the Gov may or may not have too much control. It often depends on which side of the coin one is on.

If you had a severly handicapped child, whose treatments cost a fortune, you might really enjoy and appreciate if the Gov stepped in to offer you and your wife a ton of assistance. Would that be bad?

But I, who does not have any children, might begin to talk about how "out of control the Gov is getting, helping these people with their damm retarded kid, blah, blah, blah.

So, in this example, how much "Control" do you think you might be wanting?

As for the smoking thing, it would be nice to not grow it or have anything to do with it in this country.

Except for those states whose income depends on that cash crop and all the people who earn their living growing, harvesting, selling, tobacco products.

You are involved with the Coast Guard.
Well, some could say that we should just disolve the Coast Guard as they would not be necessary once we realize that going out onto the open water is dangerous. Banning people from venturing out onto the water is a good thing for the society at large, so we do not need the Coasties to help people on the water.

So there goes your job.
And yes, that would be an example of too much Gov control.

Again, things are not perfect, but over time, we try to change things for the better.

I was wondering how long it would take to get personal. C'mon Web, we know each other better than that. I haven't went at you with your job. That you have stated puts you at risk with air quality. Why doesn't the government step in to help you?

As far as my job, your right, it's a choice people make to go out on the water. Should I quit my job just because you don't think it's worth your tax dollars. Sure, why not. :huh:

Actually, look at history, and what the Coast Guard is currently doing, and you will see that Search and Rescue isn't our only job. It's a benefit.

Like I have said in the past posts. I will benefit by this ban. And again I stress, if burning of tobacco is so bad, why not ban the burning of it? No one has giving me an answer that makes any sense. Everyone wants to turn it onto another subject, rather than look at the root issue.

And there is a program out there for handicap children with low income parents. It's called the S-chip program. And do you know where the major revenue comes from for that said program? I'll tell you. TOBACCO taxes.

So now with wanting the government to ban smoking in private places, we may in essence be telling people that need this assistance to pack sand.

I know I'm going out there a bit. But it's the honest truth.

And let me ask you this, is this debate making people's blood boil? I'm not asking for a fight, I'm just playing devils advocate here and wanting people to open up people's eyes and see what is happening around them.

And let me say this. (I know, dumb statement, I should say let me type this. LOL)

Here is my prediction. When revenue for the S-chip program dries up, or should I say burns up. (smirk) I predict that the next tax (to offset the loss of revenue) will be on eggs. Because we all know how bad the yoke is.

Laugh at it, I do, but just wait and see. It may not be this year, but I'm betting it's coming. LOL

[hellsnat]

I think everybody waffles, depending on how goverment control affects things they are involved with.:D


Exactly!:D

[Cage]

So can I say we agree that the government has to much control?

And actually has no reason (other than their pocketbooks) to make this ban?

Yes, you can say that. I do like the idea of going to the bar and not smelling like smoke, but I do not think that the law is trying to protect anyone. I sure as hell know it's not going to protect me because now I can drink more and hide it better.

[Cage]

besides I am much happier that they are trying to mess with your smoking rather than my guns.

[hellsnat]

Yes, you can say that. I do like the idea of going to the bar and not smelling like smoke, but I do not think that the law is trying to protect anyone. I sure as hell know it's not going to protect me because now I can drink more and hide it better.


Now that is funny.

And for the record. I don't smoke. LOL

I don't like smelling like smoke when I go out either. I prefer going to an establishment that is non smoking.

[hellsnat]

besides I am much happier that they are trying to mess with your smoking rather than my guns.

Oh, you think I'm going off on smoking? (which I don't)

You haven't seen anything when it starts getting serious about taking our gun rights away!
(insert smiley face holding two guns here)

[Duner]

mi said yes to the ban except casinos....lol....

[Cage]

PAGE TOPPER, BITCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Oh, you think I'm going off on smoking? (which I don't)

You haven't seen anything when it starts getting serious about taking our gun rights away!
(insert smiley face holding two guns here)

aaaahhhhh, another likeminded individual?

gun control = hitting your target

[hellsnat]

mi said yes to the ban except casinos....lol....

This makes no sense. Except like I think Cage said. Who ever pads the pockets of the law makers gets the benefit.

[Mudpuppy]

its total bullshit.. why does the government feel they have to be our moral conscience? i think it should be up to the owner of said building to decide.. doesn't the government have better things to do like start wars in far off lands and spend our tax money or better yet try to actually solve some issues instead of wasting tax money on imposing their fascist control on us? I only smoke on occassion so it really doesn't bother me.. i just don't like being told what to do or not do.. they did this in Windsor and it caused massive economic repercussions on their bars, bingo halls, etc.

If the government wants to make a real difference make it illegal to manufacture or distribute cigarettes.. why stop there - alcohol is bad for you and causes issues like traffic deaths.. ban that too.. they don't have a problem collecting the massive tax money on alcohol and cigarettes and spending that tax money as well as the nonsmokers and nondrinkers enjoy the use of the tax money through nicer roads, schools, etc. but hey go smoke in some corner somewhere like a leper.. whatever..

[xboxdynasty]

I think you are mixing fruits again! :)
I do not see Gov intrusion here as being a bad thing, leading, via the domino effect, to the downfall of Western Man.

Just in this case.


"American Cancer Society test results for secondhand smoke prove SHS is 532 - 25,000 times safer than OSHA regulations

...

Especially when you realize that all the groups pushing for smoking bans are funded by pharmaceutical nicotine interests who profit in selling smoking cessation products after a smoking ban is passed."

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-test-results.html

SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A MYTH!!! Obesity is a close rival to deaths cause by smoking. First hand! Not second hand. In other words worry about those extra pounds instead of the smoke in the bar.

Smokers pay a sin tax. Well the obese should too. People say that smokers raise health care rates. Let me propose this. If you go into the hospital with a heart attack brought on by obesity and poor fitness you will be stabilized for free. If you go in to the hospital with lung cancer, from smoking, there gonna point you in the direction of the free clinic.

I'm tired of this. Being confined to smoking lounges in public places, or a frickin square drawn in the concrete marking where I can smoke OUTSIDE. Our freedoms are dwindling:

Seatbelt laws: interfering with natural selection
Helmet laws: same
Alcohol limit: .08 who can't function after two beers, then again some can't drive without a drink

This is very similar to saying hey cars are killing motorcyclists. LETS BAN CARS! They must be the problem.

O&*^)&&_)(*+*@#_)(@*# :finger::finger::finger::finger::finger::finger:

I just spent 7 hours at the airport but still am very atamet about this issue. It's a public place lets keep it that way.