Party of free choice???

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Harvey
CONSUMATE BULLSHIT! For most people, working is not an option, and jobs are where you find them. Nicotine addicts have no right to infest PUBLIC spaces with their toxins.

With their own self-inflicted, tobacco related illnesses and infirmities, they're already adding a monumental extra burden on the public, both through their own lost productivity and the added strain on health resources. We can't stop them from killing themselves, but we can and should continue to stop them from killing others in PUBLIC places.

I'll respect your viewpoint, Harvey (though I disagree vehemently...what's new?) but I wonder...How do you feel about obese individuals? Obviously they are costing a fortune in taxpayer dollars with health care, for example. And businesses lose TONS of revenue because of sick days and time off for obese employees. Should they be barred from employment?

I'm trying to illustrate the slippery slope which begins with silly 'legislation' like this. It really doesn't matter that it is Smoking -- it could be fast food ... or alcohol ... or lottery tickets, for all I care. It's the principle of it.

Are fat people eating in public giving me cancer?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, the anti-smoking thing is going too far all over.

You think? I really don't hear to many smokers complain about it here in MA or when I lived in CA. They just adapted by going outside to smoke.

We have the ban in NY as well. As an ex smoker of 15 years it was an annoyance at first, but after awhile it didn't really matter to me to step outside. Nowadays I'm kind of digging the fact that restaurants and bars are not filled with smoke. I won't ever complain about smokers, or campaign for bans, but I do say that I don't mind that they have moved outside.

I bet you get to met a lot of chicks when you go outside for a smoke that you might not have met in a crowded bar.

I'm just saying:thumbsup:

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, the anti-smoking thing is going too far all over.

You think? I really don't hear to many smokers complain about it here in MA or when I lived in CA. They just adapted by going outside to smoke.

We have the ban in NY as well. As an ex smoker of 15 years it was an annoyance at first, but after awhile it didn't really matter to me to step outside. Nowadays I'm kind of digging the fact that restaurants and bars are not filled with smoke. I won't ever complain about smokers, or campaign for bans, but I do say that I don't mind that they have moved outside.

I bet you get to met a lot of chicks when you go outside for a smoke that you might not have met in a crowded bar.

I'm just saying:thumbsup:

Or in line for the bathroom

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
When can we ban children in restaurants? Parents and their whiny little brats ruin more meals for me than cigarettes ever have.

Or from long airplane flights...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
When can we ban children in restaurants? Parents and their whiny little brats ruin more meals for me than cigarettes ever have.

And cell phones...

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Smoking nazis banning smoking in Iowa House.

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy a smoke free bar at times but other times I do light up. IMO, it should be the choice of the business - NOT the gov't.

So is the Iowa D party for or against free choice?

They're in favor of non-smokers choice to not die because of your habit.

Because we force non-smokers to go to places that allow smoking... :roll:

Bad argument. Nobody forces smokers to go to places that prohibit smoking. That works both ways.

No it doesn't. This legislation bans smoking so there will be no where to go that allows smoking(minus the 2 exceptions - 1 of which is private clubs). This issue is also about business owners - not just patrons.

Yes it does. Smokers can go lots of places. They can go home. They can go outside. They can go to places where smoking is not prohibited. They can even go to bars and restaurants as long as they do not light up. There is no inherent right to smoke in public places.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: BoberFett
When can we ban children in restaurants? Parents and their whiny little brats ruin more meals for me than cigarettes ever have.

Or from long airplane flights...

that and people on their cellphones who think they have to holler in them because the person is far away.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Are fat people eating in public giving me cancer?

No, but they're every bit as much a drag on taxpayer dollars for costly treatment of their ailments related to being fat. I'm not sure if you made the $$$ argument, but others have.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, the anti-smoking thing is going too far all over.

You think? I really don't hear to many smokers complain about it here in MA or when I lived in CA. They just adapted by going outside to smoke.

We have the ban in NY as well. As an ex smoker of 15 years it was an annoyance at first, but after awhile it didn't really matter to me to step outside. Nowadays I'm kind of digging the fact that restaurants and bars are not filled with smoke. I won't ever complain about smokers, or campaign for bans, but I do say that I don't mind that they have moved outside.

I bet you get to met a lot of chicks when you go outside for a smoke that you might not have met in a crowded bar.

I'm just saying:thumbsup:

Or in line for the bathroom

You'd meet women when you got in line to use the Men's bathroom? Are you sure they were women being you were in NYC and all?

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: LdirThere is no inherent right to smoke in public places.

Good point.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Ldir
There is no inherent right to fart in public places.

What's the penalty for that? :laugh:

Like I said, slippery slope.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Robor
Good for them. Indoor smoking should be banned.

Edit: I live in FL and we have an indoor smoking ban here. I saw before/after and it's much nicer being able to eat in a restaurant, go to a hotel lobby, etc without reeking of smoke. Bars (less than 10% of income from food) and casinos are exempt. Restaurants are still packed by the way.

What gives you the right to eat at a restaurant?

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, the anti-smoking thing is going too far all over.

You think? I really don't hear to many smokers complain about it here in MA or when I lived in CA. They just adapted by going outside to smoke.

We have the ban in NY as well. As an ex smoker of 15 years it was an annoyance at first, but after awhile it didn't really matter to me to step outside. Nowadays I'm kind of digging the fact that restaurants and bars are not filled with smoke. I won't ever complain about smokers, or campaign for bans, but I do say that I don't mind that they have moved outside.

I bet you get to met a lot of chicks when you go outside for a smoke that you might not have met in a crowded bar.

I'm just saying:thumbsup:

Or in line for the bathroom

You'd meet women when you got in line to use the Men's bathroom? Are you sure they were women being you were in NYC and all?

LOL; yes I'm sure.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: Robor
Good for them. Indoor smoking should be banned.

Edit: I live in FL and we have an indoor smoking ban here. I saw before/after and it's much nicer being able to eat in a restaurant, go to a hotel lobby, etc without reeking of smoke. Bars (less than 10% of income from food) and casinos are exempt. Restaurants are still packed by the way.

What gives you the right to eat at a restaurant?

The right freely pursue happiness. As far as I'm concerned, if you are not negatively impacting someone else, you can do whatever the heck you want. If you impact someone else, then society has to weigh which "right" is more important. Clearly, the right of someone to breathe freely without having to inhale someone else's smoke is more important than the right of someone to smoke in a specific public place of their choice.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Smoking nazis banning smoking in Iowa House.

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy a smoke free bar at times but other times I do light up. IMO, it should be the choice of the business - NOT the gov't.

So is the Iowa D party for or against free choice?

They're in favor of non-smokers choice to not die because of your habit.

Because we force non-smokers to go to places that allow smoking... :roll:

Bad argument. Nobody forces smokers to go to places that prohibit smoking. That works both ways.

No it doesn't. This legislation bans smoking so there will be no where to go that allows smoking(minus the 2 exceptions - 1 of which is private clubs). This issue is also about business owners - not just patrons.

Yes it does. Smokers can go lots of places. They can go home. They can go outside. They can go to places where smoking is not prohibited. They can even go to bars and restaurants as long as they do not light up. There is no inherent right to smoke in public places.

I did not state there was an inherent "right". However, if the gov't is to act, there must be an over-riding safety issue. In this case - carcinogens. If that's the case then why aren't they banning the product instead the act of using the product? Hmmmm....

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: bamacre
Both parties are failing to have faith in a free market economy which leads to less rights for Americans.

This is just another example of government intervening with free markets and personal liberty. The real solution is to allow businesses to decide whether they want to allow smoking in their establishments. The consumers and their wallets should decide if the business makes the right decision. If enough customers are concerned with smokers, then enough bars will decide to not allow smoking in their establishments. The result is those concerned will bring themselves and their wallets to smoke-free establishments, while others will bring themselves and their wallets to establishments that allow smoking.

When government intervenes, the free market is crippled and suffers. The result is less freedom for Americans.

Are the businesses going to pick up the tab from the billions of dollars smoking costs the country in health care costs? Nope, the 75% of the country that doesn't smoke will. When every smoker pays their own cancer bills then they can complain about loss of liberty.

Without government intervention, the businesses would only be catering to their consumers, and it would be the consumers choice, by means of their wallets, whether or not that bar/restaurant allows smoking.

People smoke. You aren't going to change that. By forcing all bars/restaurants to be smoke-free, many smokers will stay at home and eat/drink. And the free market loses, because otherwise, there would be bars/restaurants that smokers could go to and spend their money. Bars and restaurants that spend money, hire people, lease commercial property.

Leave the choice to the consumers, have faith in the free market.

Of course, because government has intervened into the health care business, and looks to do so even more, we'll see even less freedoms in our future. Today, no smoking in bars. Tomorrow, no unhealthy food in restaurants. How dare the government have to pay for your obesity.

These are the stupid problems we face when we elect leadership that promises to protect American lives, instead of leadership that promises to protect the American way of life.

Is there any doubt that both the parties in power today don't believe in the political philosophy that freedom works? Two parties that believe that personal liberties are a barrier to a successful state?

We have gone from a government that promised to protect our rights, to a government that promises to take them away. And like moronic sheep, we cheer and celebrate.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: tagej

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: Robor
Good for them. Indoor smoking should be banned.

Edit: I live in FL and we have an indoor smoking ban here. I saw before/after and it's much nicer being able to eat in a restaurant, go to a hotel lobby, etc without reeking of smoke. Bars (less than 10% of income from food) and casinos are exempt. Restaurants are still packed by the way.

What gives you the right to eat at a restaurant?

The right freely pursue happiness. As far as I'm concerned, if you are not negatively impacting someone else, you can do whatever the heck you want. If you impact someone else, then society has to weigh which "right" is more important. Clearly, the right of someone to breathe freely without having to inhale someone else's smoke is more important than the right of someone to smoke in a specific public place of their choice.

Agreed in part. There's a right to happiness? Interesting, I've never heard of it. Where is that stated?

However, a restaurant is private property. You have every right to CHOOSE as you please (this is the happiness part). You DON'T have a right to go on someone else's private property. They invite you. You have every right to refuse. If a restaurant allows smoking and you don't like it, guess what? You don't have to give them your business. If there are many people like you that don't like smoking it will be reflected in a lack of business and the restaurant will amend their stance to remain competitive. (This is without question.)

What part of this is not understood?

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Ldir
There is no inherent right to fart in public places.

What's the penalty for that? :laugh:

Like I said, slippery slope.

Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy. If you can not refute this on its own merits you have no argument.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Leave the choice to the consumers, have faith in the free market.

That's what the businesses were saying when they had pre-teens losing fingers in factories and bakers working 80+ hours a week on threat of firing. Hey, whatever the market will bear, right?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: tagej

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: Robor
Good for them. Indoor smoking should be banned.

Edit: I live in FL and we have an indoor smoking ban here. I saw before/after and it's much nicer being able to eat in a restaurant, go to a hotel lobby, etc without reeking of smoke. Bars (less than 10% of income from food) and casinos are exempt. Restaurants are still packed by the way.

What gives you the right to eat at a restaurant?

The right freely pursue happiness. As far as I'm concerned, if you are not negatively impacting someone else, you can do whatever the heck you want. If you impact someone else, then society has to weigh which "right" is more important. Clearly, the right of someone to breathe freely without having to inhale someone else's smoke is more important than the right of someone to smoke in a specific public place of their choice.

Agreed in part. There's a right to happiness? Interesting, I've never heard of it. Where is that stated?

However, a restaurant is private property. You have every right to CHOOSE as you please (this is the happiness part). You DON'T have a right to go on someone else's private property. They invite you. You have every right to refuse. If a restaurant allows smoking and you don't like it, guess what? You don't have to give them your business. If there are many people like you that don't like smoking it will be reflected in a lack of business and the restaurant will amend their stance to remain competitive. (This is without question.)

What part of this is not understood?

Well in CA they based their argument for the banning of smoking based on the employees rights not to have to be subjected to the harmful effects of the carcinigens of second hand smoke.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: bamacre
Both parties are failing to have faith in a free market economy which leads to less rights for Americans.

This is just another example of government intervening with free markets and personal liberty. The real solution is to allow businesses to decide whether they want to allow smoking in their establishments. The consumers and their wallets should decide if the business makes the right decision. If enough customers are concerned with smokers, then enough bars will decide to not allow smoking in their establishments. The result is those concerned will bring themselves and their wallets to smoke-free establishments, while others will bring themselves and their wallets to establishments that allow smoking.

When government intervenes, the free market is crippled and suffers. The result is less freedom for Americans.

Are the businesses going to pick up the tab from the billions of dollars smoking costs the country in health care costs? Nope, the 75% of the country that doesn't smoke will. When every smoker pays their own cancer bills then they can complain about loss of liberty.

Smokers actually cost less because they die sooner. It's the healthy people who live to be 100 that cost the most.

Plus, that's what smokers pay cigarette taxes for. So hey, that tab has already been picked up.

I have no problems with banning smoking in public indoor spaces... until we get to bars. These are private establishments restricted to adult patrons only that exist solely for the commission of vice and the consumption of harmful substances. The irony of someone complaining about the health effects of 2nd-hand smoke while they're throwing back shots of Jaeger is just a little bit more than I can bear.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: bamacre
Both parties are failing to have faith in a free market economy which leads to less rights for Americans.

This is just another example of government intervening with free markets and personal liberty. The real solution is to allow businesses to decide whether they want to allow smoking in their establishments. The consumers and their wallets should decide if the business makes the right decision. If enough customers are concerned with smokers, then enough bars will decide to not allow smoking in their establishments. The result is those concerned will bring themselves and their wallets to smoke-free establishments, while others will bring themselves and their wallets to establishments that allow smoking.

When government intervenes, the free market is crippled and suffers. The result is less freedom for Americans.

Are the businesses going to pick up the tab from the billions of dollars smoking costs the country in health care costs? Nope, the 75% of the country that doesn't smoke will. When every smoker pays their own cancer bills then they can complain about loss of liberty.

Smokers actually cost less because they die sooner. It's the healthy people who live to be 100 that cost the most.

Plus, that's what smokers pay cigarette taxes for. So hey, that tab has already been picked up.

I have no problems with banning smoking in public indoor spaces... until we get to bars. These are private establishments restricted to adult patrons only that exist solely for the commission of vice and the consumption of harmful substances. The irony of someone complaining about the health effects of 2nd-hand smoke while they're throwing back shots of Jaeger is just a little bit more than I can bear.

How about the employees?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: bamacre

Leave the choice to the consumers, have faith in the free market.

That's what the businesses were saying when they had pre-teens losing fingers in factories and bakers working 80+ hours a week on threat of firing. Hey, whatever the market will bear, right?

Clearly you're too stupid for this discussion. Your statement here is kind of like the Godwin's Law of economic discussions.
90% of America lived and worked on rural farms in the 1890s. In fact, most of America lived and worked on rural farms until after WWII.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: bamacre
Both parties are failing to have faith in a free market economy which leads to less rights for Americans.

This is just another example of government intervening with free markets and personal liberty. The real solution is to allow businesses to decide whether they want to allow smoking in their establishments. The consumers and their wallets should decide if the business makes the right decision. If enough customers are concerned with smokers, then enough bars will decide to not allow smoking in their establishments. The result is those concerned will bring themselves and their wallets to smoke-free establishments, while others will bring themselves and their wallets to establishments that allow smoking.

When government intervenes, the free market is crippled and suffers. The result is less freedom for Americans.

Are the businesses going to pick up the tab from the billions of dollars smoking costs the country in health care costs? Nope, the 75% of the country that doesn't smoke will. When every smoker pays their own cancer bills then they can complain about loss of liberty.

Smokers actually cost less because they die sooner. It's the healthy people who live to be 100 that cost the most.

Plus, that's what smokers pay cigarette taxes for. So hey, that tab has already been picked up.

I have no problems with banning smoking in public indoor spaces... until we get to bars. These are private establishments restricted to adult patrons only that exist solely for the commission of vice and the consumption of harmful substances. The irony of someone complaining about the health effects of 2nd-hand smoke while they're throwing back shots of Jaeger is just a little bit more than I can bear.

How about the employees?

That's like a garbageman complaining about the smell. Or a police officer complaining that he might get shot by a suspect.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: bamacre
Both parties are failing to have faith in a free market economy which leads to less rights for Americans.

This is just another example of government intervening with free markets and personal liberty. The real solution is to allow businesses to decide whether they want to allow smoking in their establishments. The consumers and their wallets should decide if the business makes the right decision. If enough customers are concerned with smokers, then enough bars will decide to not allow smoking in their establishments. The result is those concerned will bring themselves and their wallets to smoke-free establishments, while others will bring themselves and their wallets to establishments that allow smoking.

When government intervenes, the free market is crippled and suffers. The result is less freedom for Americans.

Are the businesses going to pick up the tab from the billions of dollars smoking costs the country in health care costs? Nope, the 75% of the country that doesn't smoke will. When every smoker pays their own cancer bills then they can complain about loss of liberty.

Smokers actually cost less because they die sooner. It's the healthy people who live to be 100 that cost the most.

Plus, that's what smokers pay cigarette taxes for. So hey, that tab has already been picked up.

I have no problems with banning smoking in public indoor spaces... until we get to bars. These are private establishments restricted to adult patrons only that exist solely for the commission of vice and the consumption of harmful substances. The irony of someone complaining about the health effects of 2nd-hand smoke while they're throwing back shots of Jaeger is just a little bit more than I can bear.

How about the employees?

That's like a garbageman complaining about the smell. Or a police officer complaining that he might get shot by a suspect.

No it's more like a construction worker complaining about working around airborne asbestos particles